# Planning Commission Zoning Public Hearing - March 24, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 24, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3905 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3905?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-03-24 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 33,052 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Planning Commission met on March 24, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber, 2nd Floor LFUCG Government Center, 200 East Main Street, Lexington, Kentucky. Mike Owens presided over the meeting, which included 10 agenda items, 13 motions and votes, and 16 public comments. The commission took action on a range of development and zoning proposals. Four items were approved, including the Development Plan for Kingston Hall, Unit 1; a Zoning Map Amendment for Mary G. Germond & D. Gregory Germond; the Zoning Development Plan for Brighton Place Shoppes, Phase II; a Zoning Map Amendment for Anderson Village at Great Acres, LLC; the Zoning Development Plan for Great House Property; and approval of Telecommunication Infrastructure for Parallel Telecommunication Infrastructure 5, LLC. Five agenda items were postponed, including the Final Subdivision Plan and Development Plan for Lexmark International, Inc. (formerly IBM), the Development Plan for New Market Property, Phase I, Unit 10, and the Development Plan for Sams Property & Larkin Property. ## Attendance **Present:** - Will Berkley - Mike Cravens - David Drake - Karen Mundy - Mike Owens - Frank Penn - Carolyn Plumlee - Carolyn Richardson - Joseph Smith - Bill Wilson **Absent:** - Patrick Brewer **Late:** None recorded ## Votes and Decisions All votes during this meeting passed unanimously with 10 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 abstentions. **Approval of Minutes** [timestamp: 0:09:27] Ms. Plumlee moved to approve the minutes from February 11, 2016, and February 25, 2016, seconded by Ms. Mundy. The motion passed unanimously. All 10 members voted in favor: Will Berkley, Mike Cravens, David Drake, Karen Mundy, Mike Owens, Frank Penn, Carolyn Plumlee, Carolyn Richardson, Joseph Smith, and Bill Wilson. **Postponements** Three items were postponed to April 14, 2016: - PLAN 2016-16F and DP 2016-20 [timestamp: 0:11:17], moved by Mr. Penn and seconded by Ms. Plumlee - DP 2012-89 [timestamp: 0:28:27], moved by Ms. Mundy and seconded by Ms. Plumlee DP 2016-23 was postponed to April 28, 2016 [timestamp: 0:45:00], moved by Mr. Penn and seconded by Mr. Smith. **Consent Agenda** [timestamp: 0:14:38] Mr. Cravens moved approval of items on the Consent Agenda (DP 2004-67, DP 2007-141, DP 2012-80), seconded by Ms. Mundy. **Development Plan Approvals** - DP 2004-66 was reapproved with 11 conditions [timestamp: 0:23:46], moved by Mr. Penn and seconded by Mr. Wilson. Conditions included Urban County Engineer and Traffic Engineer approvals, Building Inspection approval of landscaping, Urban Forester approval, Greenspace Planner approval, Department of Highways approval, plan clarifications, setback requirements, cemetery notation, and additional certification. **Zoning and Development Approvals** - MAR 2016-5 was approved with three conditions [timestamp: 1:14:56], moved by Mr. Cravens and seconded by Mr. Berkley. Conditions addressed Neighborhood Business zoning compatibility and lighting restrictions. - ZDP 2016-21 was approved with 10 conditions [timestamp: 1:15:27], moved by Mr. Penn and seconded by Ms. Richardson. Conditions required Urban County Council rezoning, engineer and traffic approvals, tree inventory approval, and plan notations. - MARV 2016-6 (zone change) was approved with conditions [timestamp: 3:23:03], moved by Mr. Penn and seconded by Mr. Berkeley, including prohibited uses and development impact requirements. - A variance for MARV 2016-6 was approved [timestamp: 3:25:13], moved by Mr. Penn and seconded by Mr. Wilson. - ZDP 2016-22 was approved with 13 revised conditions [timestamp: 3:25:49], moved by Ms. Richardson and seconded by Mr. Penn. **Other Actions** - Initiation of ZODA for environmentally sensitive areas [timestamp: 3:28:37], moved by Ms. Plumlee and seconded by Mr. Wilson. - CT 2016-2 (cell tower) was approved with five conditions [timestamp: 4:02:11], moved by Mr. Penn and seconded by Mr. Wilson. Conditions included height limits, co-location requirements, zoning compliance, screening, and traffic/drainage protections. ## Public Comment The meeting included public comment on two primary development proposals: a parking lot expansion at Todd's Center and a rezoning for Anderson Village, along with a cell tower proposal. **Support for Todd's Center Parking Expansion** Three speakers expressed support for the parking lot expansion. Holly Bauman, owner of a barbershop in the shopping center, testified that additional parking would greatly help all tenants, especially during peak times when parking is limited [timestamp: 1:06:45]. Diane Holder, manager of Cocktails Bar and Grill, stated that additional parking would help their business by reducing lost customers due to lack of parking [timestamp: 1:08:26]. Gatewood Gay, a property owner at Maple Leaf Square, expressed support for the project and requested a six-foot privacy fence and mitigation of light pollution [timestamp: 1:07:22]. **Opposition to Anderson Village Rezoning** Michael Barnett spoke on behalf of over 500 petitioners in opposition to the rezoning, citing concerns about traffic, stormwater, property values, and loss of green space [timestamp: 2:27:05]. **Resident Concerns About Traffic and Flooding** Multiple residents raised concerns about the Anderson Village development. Noreen Ward, a resident of Leesway Drive, expressed concern about living behind a gas station and increased traffic on Leastown Road [timestamp: 2:44:08]. Michael Masterson, a resident of Masterson Station, voiced concerns about traffic congestion and flooding due to the property being in a floodplain [timestamp: 2:46:56]. Jeff Swain, a retired Army engineer, warned that the development would exacerbate flooding due to increased impervious surfaces and inadequate stormwater infrastructure [timestamp: 2:49:40]. Pat Lake, a resident of Summerfield Drive, shared concerns about flooding reaching her yard and traffic congestion at the intersection of Masterson Station Road and Leestown Road [timestamp: 2:52:28]. **Additional Development Concerns** Bob Pettenpole and Michael Lay expressed concerns about increased traffic and density [timestamps: 2:54:11 and 2:55:21]. Margaret Gordon questioned the appeal of the area for young professionals given few amenities [timestamp: 2:57:39]. John Stewart and Gregory Stapleton opposed the commercial development due to concerns about light, noise, and garbage pollution [timestamps: 2:58:09 and 3:01:22]. Kay Tungate expressed concern about light pollution and flooding risk [timestamp: 3:03:03]. **Cell Tower Opposition** Mike Quigley opposed the cell tower due to concerns about environmental impact, property values, and visibility [timestamp: 3:47:58]. Charles Lyle questioned why the tower would exceed 200 feet and expressed concern about required lighting [timestamp: 3:55:09]. ## Contested Items **Rezoning for Anderson Village at Great Acres** The proposed rezoning for Anderson Village at Great Acres faced significant community opposition. Over 500 petitioners submitted objections to the rezoning plan. Residents raised multiple concerns about the project's impact on the neighborhood, including traffic congestion, stormwater management, property values, and loss of green space. Community members expressed particular fears about increased traffic congestion, potential flooding issues, and the effect the development would have on the neighborhood's character. **Cell Tower at Turner Station Road** A proposed cell tower at Turner Station Road also drew community opposition. Residents objected to the project based on environmental impact concerns, potential effects on property values, and visibility issues. Opponents requested that additional balloon tests be conducted to better assess the tower's visual impact. They also asked for verification that the tower would meet required distance requirements from historic districts in the area. ## Final Subdivision Plan: Lexmark International, Inc. (FKA: IBM) (AMD) **Identifier:** PLAN 2016-16F The Planning Commission considered the final subdivision plan for Lexmark International, Inc. (formerly IBM) during this meeting [timestamp: 0:10:06]. **Action Taken** The Commission postponed this agenda item. The Subdivision Committee had recommended postponement, and the petitioner requested a three-week postponement to allow time to resolve outstanding issues. **Reason for Postponement** The primary reason for postponement was that the required 30% infrastructure report had not been submitted at the time of the meeting. This documentation was necessary to proceed with the Commission's review of the final subdivision plan. **Key Participant** Jihad Hallany was identified as a key speaker during the discussion of this item. ## Development Plan: Lexmark International, Inc. (FKA: IBM) **Agenda Item:** DP 2016-20 **Type:** Discussion **Outcome:** Postponed The Planning Commission postponed consideration of the Development Plan for Lexmark International, Inc. (formerly IBM) [timestamp: 0:10:06]. Jihad Hallany presented the item to the Commission. **Key Concerns Raised** The Commission identified several issues that prompted the postponement: - **Private Access Conflict:** Concerns were raised regarding a private access conflict with the Legacy Trail - **Access Easement Timing:** Questions about the timing of access easement arrangements - **Internal Intersection Geometrics:** Issues with unconventional internal intersection geometrics within the development plan **Petitioner Request** The petitioner requested a three-week postponement to address the identified concerns and allow time for further review and revisions to the development plan. ## Development Plan: New Market Property, Phase I, Unit 10 **Identifier:** DP 2012-89 The Planning Commission addressed the Development Plan for New Market Property, Phase I, Unit 10 as a discussion item [timestamp: 0:25:16]. **Outcome** The Planning Commission postponed consideration of this item. **Reason for Postponement** The postponement was necessitated by a delay in posting the required legal advertisement. Staff recommended that the Commission postpone the item to allow for correct advertising procedures to be completed. **Key Participant** Mr. Sallee was the primary speaker on this agenda item. ## Development Plan: Kingston Hall, Unit 1 **Identifier:** DP 2004-66 The Planning Commission reapproved the Development Plan for Kingston Hall, Unit 1 during this meeting. [timestamp: 0:23:46] **Key Speakers** Richard Murphy and Mr. Sallee were the primary speakers on this agenda item. **Discussion and Concerns** The Commission addressed concerns regarding an erroneous legal advertisement related to the development plan. This issue required the plan to be reapproved rather than simply approved on initial consideration. **Conditions** The reapproval included 11 conditions imposed on the development plan. Additionally, a second certification was required as part of the approval process. **Outcome** The Development Plan: Kingston Hall, Unit 1 was approved by the Planning Commission with the 11 conditions and second certification requirement. ## Development Plan: Sams Property & Larkin Property (AMD) **Identifier:** DP 2016-23 The Planning Commission discussed a development plan for the Sams Property and Larkin Property during this meeting [timestamp: 0:45:00]. Key participants in the discussion included Evan McDaniel and Mr. Martin. **Issues Identified** The Commission identified several unresolved issues that prevented approval of the development plan: - Stormwater management concerns - Road improvements requirements - Spring protection measures **Action Taken** Rather than proceeding with a decision, the Planning Commission postponed this agenda item. The applicant agreed to work collaboratively with staff to address and resolve the outstanding issues before the plan could move forward. **Outcome** The item was postponed pending resolution of the identified concerns. ## Zoning Map Amendment: Mary G. Germond & D. Gregory Germond [timestamp: 1:14:56] The Planning Commission considered a zoning map amendment for a property owned by Mary G. Germond and D. Gregory Germond. The proposal sought to change the property's zoning classification from Agricultural Urban to Neighborhood Business (B-1). **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Richard Hopgood, Ms. Wade, and Mr. Martin. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the zone change from Agricultural Urban to Neighborhood Business (B-1). The approval included three conditions imposed on the zoning change. **Conditions** One of the conditions included a conditional zoning restriction on lighting for the property. ## Zoning Development Plan: Brighton Place Shoppes, Phase II **Identifier:** ZDP 2016-21 The Planning Commission discussed and approved the Zoning Development Plan for Brighton Place Shoppes, Phase II during the meeting on March 24, 2016. [timestamp: 1:15:27] **Key Participants** The discussion involved Richard Hopgood, Ms. Wade, and Mr. Martin. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the development plan. The approval included 10 conditions that the applicant must satisfy: - A requirement for a second certification - Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan **Summary** This agenda item was presented as a discussion item and resulted in approval of the proposed zoning development plan for the second phase of Brighton Place Shoppes, subject to the specified conditions. ## Zoning Map Amendment: Anderson Village at Great Acres, LLC The Planning Commission considered a zoning map amendment for Anderson Village at Great Acres, LLC [timestamp: 3:23:03]. The proposal sought to change the zoning designation from Agricultural Urban and Single Family Residential to Planned Neighborhood Residential and Highway Service Business. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Mr. Murphy, Ms. Wade, and Mr. Martin. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the zone change. The approval included 11 conditions designed to regulate the development, including prohibitions on certain commercial uses. ## Zoning Development Plan: Great House Property **Identifier:** ZDP 2016-22 The Planning Commission discussed and approved the Zoning Development Plan for the Great House Property during this meeting [timestamp: 3:25:49]. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Mr. Murphy, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Emmons. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the development plan with 13 revised conditions. **Conditions of Approval** The approval included requirements addressing: - Stormwater management - Traffic control - Environmental protection ## Telecommunication Infrastructure: Parallel Telecommunication Infrastructure 5, LLC [timestamp: 4:02:11] The Planning Commission discussed and voted on a cell tower application submitted by Parallel Telecommunication Infrastructure 5, LLC (agenda item CT 2016-2). **Key Speakers** Mr. Wahlberg and Ms. Rackers participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome** The Planning Commission approved the cell tower application. **Conditions of Approval** The approval included the following conditions: - Height limit of 200 feet for the tower - Requirements for co-location of equipment - Screening requirements --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of minutes from February 11, 2016, and February 25, 2016 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Postponement of PLAN 2016-16F and DP 2016-20 to April 14, 2016 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Postponement of DP 2012-89 to April 14, 2016 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of items on Consent Agenda: DP 2004-67, DP 2007-141, DP 2012-80 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Reapproval of DP 2004-66 with 11 conditions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Postponement of DP 2016-23 to April 28, 2016 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of MAR 2016-5 with three conditions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of ZDP 2016-21 with 10 conditions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of MARV 2016-6 (zone change) with conditions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of variance for MARV 2016-6 - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of ZDP 2016-22 with 13 revised conditions - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Initiation of ZODA for environmentally sensitive areas - **Motion** — passed (10-0): Approval of CT 2016-2 (cell tower) with conditions --- ## Full transcript He'll leave, yeah Don't fall in love with a dreamer Cause he'll break you every time Oh, put out a line And just hold on Before we say goodbye Before we say goodbye Goodbye You don't have to be beautiful to turn me on. I just need your body, baby, from dusk till dawn. You don't need experience to turn me out. You just leave it all up to me I'll show you what it's all about It was built to run She was built to show She's got a haggard head Playing on a stereo Yeah, I'm in love with a girl And a four-wheel drive From steel bumpers and red stepsides She has a large time and a large machine Man, I wonder how she gets up in that thing Past a fake shadow, sitting in the sun She's got it revved up rocking, ready to run And someday soon I'm gonna climb right up Take a little ride in her big old truck Yeah, I'm in love with a girl in a four-wheel drive With chrome steel bumpers and red step side She has a lot of time in a large machine Man, I wonder how she gets up in that thing Cast a big shadow, sitting in the sun She's got it revved up rocking, ready to run And someday soon I'm on a climb ride up Take a little ride in her big old church Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Everyone will come on in and take their seats. We'll get started in about 30 seconds. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It is 1.30 and it is March the 24th, 2016. Welcome to everyone. We're glad you're here. First on the order, the agenda today would be approval of minutes. We have minutes from February 11, 2016 and February 25, 2016 that were emailed to the Commission members. At this time, I have not heard of any corrections or changes. If you know of any, please let it be known now. Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Yes, ma'am. Move approval of February 11, 2016 and February 25, 2016 minutes. Second. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded for the approval of those minutes, February 11th, February 25th, 2016. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Next would be any postponements or withdrawals from today's agenda. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jihad Halani, and we are requesting the final development plan for Lexmark and the final record plan to be postponed for the April 14 hearing. We are still working with the staff on the waiver. Okay, you are asking for postponement on both the plan and the development plan? That's correct. Okay, thank you. That would be on page 1 and also page 4 of our agenda. Page 1 is Plan 2016-16F and page 4 is a Development Plan DP 2016-20. Anyone in the audience wish to speak to this request for postponement? I'm sorry, Mr. Aulani, did you say one month? April 14th? April 14th. Okay, thank you, sir. Thank you. Seeing no one, Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move for postponement to the April 14th meeting plan 2016-16F and plan 2016-20 to the April 14th meeting. Thank you. The motion has been made and seconded for the postponement of those two plans, Plan 2016-F and DP 2016-20 until the April 14th meeting. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Any other requests for postponements or withdrawals? Staff, do you have any? No? Okay. If not, a little bit of a rarity. We do have a consent agenda for today's hearing. You have it on a 10-sheet of paper. Before you all, I'll ask Mr. Salee to walk us through that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Commission, good afternoon. You do have so many subdivision and development plans on your agenda today that there are several that do qualify for consideration on a consent agenda. The first is a development plan that's been recommended for conditional re-approval by your subdivision committee. It appears on page 2, item B of your meeting agenda. This is DP 2004-67, a request by Kingston Hall Unit 2, also known as the East Bridgeford Land and Development Company. This involves property located off of Newtown Pike in the vicinity of Providence Place Parkway. The next item on your meeting agenda is also on the consent agenda, DP 2007-141, New Market Property Unit 8. This is a development plan for property with an address of 1501 Deerhaven Lane. This plan is also a preliminary subdivision plan. The next item on your agenda is also on the consent agenda, DP 2012-80, an amended final development plan and preliminary subdivision plan for the new market property, Phase 1, Unit 6 amended. This property has an address of 1501 Deerhaven Lane, a portion of. Mr. Chairman, we have affidavits for the signposting for each of these plans. The affidavits appear to be in order, and the signs have the correct date for today's meeting. Also, at your place, two of the plans require the Commission to approve findings that the plans are in compliance with the Expansionary Master Plan. The handouts have a little note on them to differentiate them from a lot of your other handouts, saying that they are for today's consent agenda. They involve the DP 2007-141 compliance report for that development plan for New Market Unit 8, and also the final item on your agenda, the compliance statement in a memo form dated February 3rd of 2016 for DP 2012-80 New Market Property Phase 1 Unit 6. Mr. Chairman, at this time, the Commission can consider approving these three plans, or I should say re-approving them, as has been recommended by your subdivision committee, unless a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the audience, or one of the applicants would ask that they be removed to allow for further discussion of any of these three. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Anyone in the audience wish to hear any one of these three items? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'm going to move approval of the consent agenda and also the findings of EAMP compliance. Second. Motion has been made and seconded for approval of the consent agenda as read with the EAM compliance reports. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry we did not get the second on the motion. thank you miss mundy thank you there it is motion passes thank you folks we will take the remaining items in order as the agenda has them to get started. We'd start on page two. Before we do that, let me have everyone's attention. I would ask that anyone planning to speak today, provide any information, I would like for you to stand and be sworn in. Anyone planning to provide information today? If you would, raise your right hand. I swear that the information today will be the truth. Please answer affirmatively if you do. I do. Thank you, sir. And ladies. So, page two. First under development plans, it's DP 2004-66 Kingston Hall, Unit 1. This is a re-approval. Mr. Salee. Mr. Chairman, we'll put the plan up and begin in just a moment. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, members of the Commission, good afternoon. This plan is DP 2004-66, Kingston Hall Unit 1. The property is located at 2175 and 2301 Russell Cave Road. This plan has been recommended for reapproval by your subdivision committee and would have qualified for consideration on your consent agenda today, were it not for the fact that we have had a request from the Joyland Neighborhood Association for a postponement of this plan. This takes just a couple of minutes to explain what's going on with this. This plan had an advertisement placed in the local newspaper, along with several of the other plans that you've already considered. And in the ad, it described this as 24 residential lots. As you may recall from your work session recently, these properties are zoned ED in the Kingston Hall area. And as you well know, if you attended that work session, residential uses are not currently permitted in that zone. So the staff did communicate this with the neighborhood. they still felt that this plan should be approved because of the word residential appearing in the legal ad. Mr. Salley, did you say approve? Postpone. I probably did say approve. I meant postpone. Thank you. You have reapproved the property just immediately to the west of this location, but this is near I-75 and the bridge of Russell Cave Road going over the interstate 75 and 64 here. Joyland is a residential neighborhood to the south and east of this location, so they are interested in development in this general area. This plan proposes two new streets, one of which is an exacted collector street type of roadway. The others are local streets that would then stub into the remainder of the Unit 1 development. The lot sizes are generally 12 acres here, 16 here, down to as small as 7, this location and at this location. So varying lots for economic development, uses and development. This plan was certified on February 1, 2013, subject to the 10 conditions that appear on your agenda. Again, this is on page 2 of your meeting agenda. The plan has since expired because it is also a preliminary subdivision plan, which allows the applicant to submit plans to the Division of Engineering to actually begin the infrastructure development. As to the legal ad issue, the staff then looked at the ordinance more closely about the legal ad and found that it is required for final development plans and is not required for preliminary development plans. So although the word residential does appear in the ad, we don't think we have defective notice because really this plan was not required to appear in the ad at all. For this reason, we want to explain this to you, tell you that there is no ordinance violation with you going forward on this plan at all. The staff is recommending that if you act to reapprove it as recommended by your subdivision committee, that we do have one condition, and that would be that a second certification be added to the plan. This plan was certified by Mr. King prior to his retirement. Of course, Mr. King is no longer with us. We need a different certification should you choose to re-approve this plan. With that, I'd be glad to answer any questions from the Commission about this item on your agenda or any of the items I've discussed with you today. Any questions for Mr. Salley in regards to this? Obviously, we apologize for the erroneous advertisement. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I should mention, which I did not, the staff did apologize to the Neighborhood Association of E&O. We're very sorry that this occurred. Thank you, sir. Applicant, anything to add? representing the applicant Kingston Hall this is a re-approval it's no change in the plan which has been approved before so again we agree with Mr. Salley that it's appropriate to re-approve this at this time thank you sir anyone else in the audience wish to speak in regards to this plan any questions from the commission yes ma'am i have a question um number nine the minimum setback is 50 feet should russell cave be widened is that enough as most roads get widened somewhere in the future um widening of roads would take place if it does uh at some point in the future this was Is it just the standard building line setbacks established for this area? I don't think we need to increase setbacks for expansions that we don't know are going to happen yet. Any other questions? If not, thank you. And I would once again reiterate that we apologize for the erroneous mistake as far as the legal advertisement mistakenly putting in residential when it actually is not and was not when this was certified or approved back in 2013. So at that, I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or a motion. You ready for a motion? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for reapproval of DP 2000 Day 67. Do you want to add that one additional? Yes. Okay. With the addition available for staff as regarding certification. Motion's been made and seconded for re-approval of DP 2004-66 with the now 11 noted conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. motion passes thank you folks move on to page 4 it's DP 2012-89 new market property phase 1 unit 10 this is also a re-approval Thank you. getting so much help over there. Are you winning the NCAA pool? No, sir. I took one look at the bracket, and I declined to enter this year. This next item appears on page 4 of your meeting agenda. DP 2012-89, New Market Property, Phase 1, Unit 10. This involves property with an address of 1501 Deerhaven Lane. On your consent agenda, you approve two other similar plans in the Deerhaven area. This is a final development plan and a preliminary subdivision plan for Unit 10. The others that were on your consent agenda were Unit 1 and Unit 6. This is for residential development out in the area of Polo Club, south of the LFUCG Rail to Trail, which is there and actually it is identified on the plan. It is on the east side of Polo Club. It's in fairly close proximity to the new elementary school that is under development. I'm not going to present the plan to you because I need to go back to the legal ad issue that we discussed on the last plan. I told you that plan was a preliminary development plan and this plan is a final development plan. The staff did advertise three development plans on your agenda today but unfortunately one of them we chose incorrectly. This plan did not appear in your legal ad. However, this plan actually is still alive, meaning it has not yet quite been three years since it was certified, and I've talked with the applicant's engineer. They still have the rest of the day today and tomorrow to submit improvement plans for this subdivision. Their reply was they plan to submit them for the other units. This one is located more distant from them. They do not have immediate plans to submit improvement plans to the Division of Engineering for this particular unit. The staff is recommending a postponement of this plan for three weeks to your next meeting so that we can correctly place the legal ad in the paper for this item. Again, I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have of us on this. Thank you. Questions for Mr. Salley? Seems like we've had troubles with the legal ads recently. Yes, sir. We apologize for it once again. It's been many years since we've had this. Thank you. Applicant. Yes, true. Applicant. Well, unless we can overrule all that, I guess I have to take a postponement. Unfortunately, I think we're going to have to go with it. All right. So we'll change the sign for the April 14th hearing in a couple weeks, I guess. Thank you, sir. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this? Commission members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Chair, I move postponement of DP-201289, New Market Property, Phase 1, Unit 10, to April 14th of this year. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for postponement until April 14th of DP-2012-89. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Moving on to page 5 of our agenda. It's DP 2016-23, Sam's Property and Larkin Property. Thank you. property in Larkin property. This is a development plan for property located at the intersection of Greendale Road and Spur Road. This is the Eagle Distributing Company in this location along Innovation Drive with its intersection with Spur Road. You may recall this has been a recording studio in this location for many, many years this has now been donated to the university of kentucky we understand they're going to place their radio facilities out here but that's that's just what we've heard we'll we'll have to see how that goes but again this is lot one it is subject as a part of this development plan they are proposing to put a warehouse with offices in this location on the property with associated parking you can see they're proposing access here at greendale in two locations and then they're tying in with an access drive into this existing development again the the eagle distributorship this is again existing access into the recording studio slash radio future radio facilities they are proposing detention in this location and in this location as well. This plan was postponed at your last hearing for two weeks till today. The plan was recommended for approval by your subdivision committee, and there was a lot of basic cleanup items and certain items that have to be addressed that's not unusual on a development of this nature. There were several discussion items, and these are consistent discussion items with all the development that's happened out in this area over the last few years, one of those that's extremely important, it's very technical, is how you sewer this property. There is a trunk line across Spur Road. Eagle Distributing, they have their own lift station which serves their property. There have been discussions as to how this property will be sewered, whether they will utilize eagles existing, or will they choose to go on their own, again, across spur and tie into, that is an option that exists as well. A very, very important issue that has existed for years with Lot 1 is the fact that this has been out here for many, many years, prior to all this development, in fact. And it's on a septic tank. And one of the requirements is that this be tied in to this development sewer. Now, staff has been told that there's been a very positive response from the University of Kentucky and that they are going to be able to work together to address that issue and, again, get this building off of that septic tank and onto public sewer. that issue again with the sewer is one of your discussion items now staff has had communications with the applicant that they are working on this that there's a they're coming up with a design staff however is also aware that they've not fully vetted this and dealt with our engineering department as of today another issue that is of extreme importance and again it came up here It's come up in other locations. As you all are very aware, Greendale and Spur are old rural roads, and we've got a lot of development happening out that way, a lot of urban development. And so staff is always concerned about the appropriate improvements needed on this property. And, in fact, you approved a record plat a couple of years ago that dedicated right away. You did not require improvements at that time. It was a subject of a waiver request and a lot of discussion. And it is being discussed on this development plan as well, the nature and extent of the necessary improvements. That, as staff's understanding, has not been fully vetted with either traffic or Kentucky State District 7, because these are state roads. Planning and traffic engineering, we tend to push, as you all are aware, full improvements. We like our full improvements. But we do have to work with the state. And at a minimum, we would anticipate there would be widening. But again, as of today, we don't believe that's been fully vetted at this point. Again, it's underway. The remaining issue is there's an existing pond on this property. And right here is an approximate location of St. Clair Spring. So this is a little spring and fed pond. Now, there has been some environmental assessment done in this area, including an assessment of this pond. Now, we've not seen a full report on that, nor do we believe have some other entities seen a full report on how best to address this spring. It is shown to be covered over with heavy-duty concrete, obviously, to serve the warehouse. And that may be appropriate, a spring box. At this point, again, we're not aware of what would be appropriate here. As you all have heard on many occasions, we have different types of springs. They can be dealt with in different ways. If it's a big, 365-day flowing spring, well, we're going to protect them and leave them alone. If it's an intermittent spring, wet-weather spring, some of them we leave alone, particularly in this end of town. Some of them, Springs Motel, you may recall. There's a spring box, and that works, and that's the appropriate solution. At this point in time, we're not fully aware of what that solution is. So those three discussion items actually do remain on your agenda today, and I would reiterate that your subdivision committee did recommend approval. That's not unusual when you have these types of issues that are engineering and technical issues that can be resolved when there's been an opportunity to have discussions and to agree on the direction that we need to go. And again, I would reiterate that the applicant has had some discussions with planning, brief discussions with planning, phone conversations, that sort of thing. There's been some e-mail communications. But they haven't, to our understanding, had the opportunity to fully vet some of this with other entities such as engineering and traffic. So I wanted to bring you up to speed on where we stand on this particular development. The applicant is here today, and I'm sure they're going to be able to elaborate on progress that they have made. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Yes, sir. Mr. Martin, how are you? I missed the subdivision meeting. why is the access needed to the Eagle property? Is it the same owner? It is our understanding, yes, it is. Whether it will remain the same owner, we're not aware. We felt like interaccess would be important. We don't really have a problem with it, and it would allow people to come out to innovation and people also to move through to Greendale if necessary. We do have a problem with the geometrics with that access. Our fire department will not be able to get a big red truck through that particular configuration, so there would have to be some modification to that access. So if it's the same ownership, then there would need to be an access easement? Not necessarily, and there is not one on the plat, obviously. It is something that could be addressed if it's necessary in the future. But if either one of those properties change hands, you'd need an access easement? We would, not necessarily. From our perspective, you have development plans, and they govern, and there will be statements requiring reciprocal parking and access. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Barton, am I correct, this is a final development plan? Yes, sir, it is. Okay. And it sounds like we've got three items, as you said, that have not been vetted yet. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Applicant? Evan McDaniel with Element Design. Let me ask, you know, specifically these last three discussion items, you know, Where are you with those at the present time? With the sanitary, we do plan to use the, as one preferred option, to use the existing lift station. And regarding your question, with the property boundary between those two have been removed, so it is one property now. And so it is the same owner, and the warehouse will be a leased space. Mr. Pell? Is it a consolidation? Is it a consolidation plat? You've put the two together? That's already been done. Already been done. So that's all one plat? The number's on there. Okay. Thank you. And so the sanitary, we're going to tie in with the U.K. property, working with them, go to our new warehouse and tie into the existing lift station on the previous property. Okay. What can you tell us about the improvements to the roads and then the spring protection as well? We've reached out to KYTC regarding the State Road, Greendale Road. We haven't got any feedback yet on what they're going to require for improvements. We do have some concerns if they want curb and gutter being able to, if we need to do curb and gutter and then drainage, How are we going to deal with potential pollutants from the roadway? So we need to see if they just want widening sidewalks. We haven't gotten any response back yet from them on their actual improvements they want. But we have started. We've sent in an application for permit to get that ball rolling. And regarding the spring, it's hard to tell what to do with the spring until you get out there and you've finalized grading. But we think a spring box will be sufficient. We've had an environmental report by Palmer Engineering that says the spring is ephemeral, and I've got that report here, and it shouldn't be, there's no running water constantly. Interesting. I was out there today, and there's water coming out of that pond underneath the road on down, and I've been out there for 40 years, and there's constantly water there, it seems like. Okay, other questions from the commission? Let me ask. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak on this plan? Okay. Mr. Penn, did you have another question? I've seen technical. Yes, it has been before technical. And this is what came out of it with these major, these three discussion items. that unfortunately to me I don't think has been, as Mr. Barton said, haven't been vetted by the staff or engineering at this time. Anything else to add, sir? The fire department's concerns, the vehicular circulation for their truck, that has been improved in the plans, and turning radiuses have been improved to let the truck go through. We received the turning radius template and have applied that to the design, design and so it's slightly altered to increase turning radius. Okay. All right then. I think that could be taken care of as far as it's done off on fire. Oh. Yes, sir. Speaking of fire department. Greg Lingle, Division of Fire. We did get the template, but it doesn't show to work. No, and I sent an email back to Mr. McDaniel, and the sketch that they gave us shows it in vehicles. So I think with some minor work, it could be a doable plan. You're not ready yet? No, we wouldn't sign off on this the way it is now. All right. Okay. Thank you, sir. I have gone back since that correspondence, I have gone and changed the drawings to address what he sent. And I can send him that new layout. The thing is, we need to get that in the hands of everybody so that this commission can feel comfortable moving forward. So, you know, to me, Mr. McDaniel, I'm not comfortable with this thing moving forward yet until, as Mr. Martin says, it gets vetted by our staff and engineering and also fire department as well. Anything else to add? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Commission, any questions? Mr. Penn? I just think it's a little premature for us to approve this plan. I think this plan needs to get a 30-day postponement, let them go back and jump through all the hoops that need to be jumped through, and we'll live and fight another day here. I was present in the committee hearing, and yes, we did recommend approval with the understanding that these items would be resolved by the time we got to it. And with postponement two weeks ago, I thought that it was being worked on, but unfortunately I don't see it being at that stage at this point in time. So I'll close this part of the hearing and open it up for any other discussion and or motions. I'm ready for a motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move for one postponement for DP 2016-23. Motion's been made for postponement for one month. That would take it to the April 24th. Oops, I'm sorry. April 28th hearing. This is of DP 2016-23 Sam's property. Any questions in regards to the motion? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. The commission may wish to consider a continuance rather than postponement. Just throw that out. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Amend your motion. I amend my motion by saying a continuance until April 28th meeting. Okay, thank you. Who's seconded that? Mr. Smith? Yes. Yes? You're good with that? Okay. So the amended motion is for continuance until April 28th. Questions? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Sorry, Mr. McDaniel. Try and get the information to the staff and engineering and fire. we'll move on to our first zone change request page 6 MAR 2016-5 Mary G. Gerdman and D. Gregory Gerdman co-trustees for Mary Gerdman irrevocable trust I'm sorry I can't talk you have the zone change request we do have revised conditions for the ZDP on a gray sheet of paper that is before you. He's crisp in it. Good afternoon, Chairman Owens, members of the Commission. As mentioned, our next item is MAR 2016-5. This appears on page 6 of our agenda. It's item 1A and is found in your notebooks behind tab 1. The petitioners have requested a zone change for the address of 3080 Old Todd's Road. Its existing zoning is agricultural urban, and they're requesting a neighborhood business, which is our B1 zone. The subject property is located on the south side of Old Todd's Road, very near the intersection of Old Todd's Road and Liberty Road, as well as Manowar Boulevard. So the subject property, again, is on the south. Here's Old Todd's Road. It intersects Liberty Road to the east. And then Manowar also provides some, I guess, transportation, part of the transportation network in this vicinity to the south of the subject property. It is a very somewhat of a small parcel considering its agricultural zoning currently. It is less than half of an acre, and it's bound to the west by a townhouse development and to the east by a shopping center. This aerial photograph provides a little bit of context. The maple leaf townhouses are to the west, and then the Todd's center is to the east. To the north is an historic district, one of our local historic districts for Cadentown. In the vicinity, the primarily residential uses to the east and north, and then commercial uses to the east. There's additional commercial and residential to the south on the other side of Manowar Boulevard. The applicant's asking for a B1 zone in order to construct a parking lot to facilitate additional parking for the shopping center. Their plan is to consolidate this property into the rest of the shopping center and provide an additional almost 50 spaces. This will allow the shopping center to have more flexibility with their leasing and at peak times provide enough parking for some of the higher used tenants. Specifically in this area, there's a BW3 and then a Kentowry that sort of are the anchors to the small shopping center. In terms of the comprehensive plan, let me show you a few photos of the property. The existing site has been cleared. Previously, it did have a single-family residence. This is just a view looking towards Manowar Boulevard from Todd's Road. From the opposite end of the property, from the existing parking lot near the BW3 restaurant, looking back towards Old Todd's Road, which is to the north. And then along Old Todd's Road, the subject property has not been improved, but I believe it's recommended that there be sidewalks and a small widening of right-of-way in this area. The existing tree you see in this photo, I believe, is a pin oak, which they've identified, although significant, is diseased and should be removed. And then lastly, looking down Old Todd's Road towards Liberty Road, and this shows the adjoining shopping center and that there are existing improvements to that portion of Old Todd's Road, especially in terms of sidewalks. The 2013 Comprehensive Plan focuses on general land use policies and no longer provides a land use map for the Planning Commission to consider. In terms of the justification from the applicant, they believe it is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan. first that the subject site can support I'm sorry, the site will support the existing Todd Center, which is a neighborhood node, commercial node in this area. Also the proposed shopping center expansion will be compatible and the zoning is current zoning of the shopping center is B1 and they're proposing this to also be a B1 zone. The proposed expansion won't impact the adjoining residential land use and will allow for pedestrian connection on Old Todd's Road. And then also that the proposed development will allow for this underutilized parcel to become productive and support the commercial development in the area. Since the site is currently underutilized, the Planning Commission should consider a higher use for the property. And in terms of repurposing, the staff acknowledges really there's only two ways that it should be repurposed, either in support of the residential to the west or in support of the commercial to the east. And then the applicant purchased the property so that they can utilize it to support, again, the commercial development in this area. The one concern that had been expressed recently was about landscaping and what kind of landscape buffer would be along the multifamily line. The applicant is required to provide a 15-foot buffer between residential and business-owning with the trees every 40 feet in shrubs. They can reduce the width and provide a fence. The staff felt that that existing requirement was adequate in this case because on the residential side of this property is a dry vial. The residential units are not generally right up next to the applicant's property. So we feel like the land use buffer proposed by the ordinance or required by the ordinance is adequate in this case. The staff is recommending, and the zoning committee also recommended, approval of this requested zone change from AU to B1 in that the B1 zone is in agreement with the comprehensive plan. And the findings for that are on your agenda today as well as in the staff's report. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommendation. Questions for Ms. White? Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. The plan that you see before you today is for a parking lot. And I've got to run over here real quick and get the right handout. I grabbed the pretty blue color and I wanted the gray color. This is the revised handout. for this particular plan. As you can see before you, here is Old Todd's Road. Here is the lot in question, the commercial development that it will serve once it is developed. This is a preliminary development plan. It shows 48 approximate parking spaces. You get down in here, you've got to be careful how you count them. It says four, but there appears to be three within the area of this property. There were issues initially with the layout of the parking lot, and this is a revised plan that has addressed those issues. It's one of the reasons we have given you a revision. They're going to come in off Old Todd's Road in this location. They'll circulate this way. There is two-way access into the parking lot here as well as down to here into the rest of the existing property. This has been revised for one-way access, and that's assisted the design and, in fact, provided additional parking. By doing that, it also helped by bringing them out this way. You come in here, you come in here. This was originally two ways. It created a huge amount of conflict. And staff had a lot of concern along with traffic. This is a very busy, I believe, a drive-thru liquor store. That speaks to something, I won't. But we were very concerned about the conflict in there. This design greatly assists in removing that conflict. The other issues that we had to discuss, again, they're adding a lot of pavement. So at the time of the final development plan, they're going to have to demonstrate how they're going to take that water to the existing detention that serves the commercial development now. As well as they will be doing improvements to Old Todd's Road, and that will have to be dedicated on a plat, which you will see sometime in the future accepting that dedication. You will see a final development plan on this, and as Ms. Wade stated, there's also going to be a consolidation plan to bring these two properties together into one. They need to denote that on this plan. We'd like to have that timing denoted, and you can see that as number eight. And then number nine is the right-of-way dedication. We just ask that they denote on this plan a timing of that. And with that, staff is recommending approval of the plan. Questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, do you know what they're, as far as the landscape buffering, do you know what they're planning? Yes. As a matter of fact, initially we were concerned about the 15 feet that's required. They have an option of five feet with a fence. They are now demonstrating an ability to put that fence in and to have the five feet. In fact, it gets wider down here, and they can meet Article 18 based on what we've seen here today. And again, we will also receive a final development plan that will have to demonstrate compliance with Article 18 as well. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? If not, thank you, sir. Applicant. Yes, sir. In a moment. We'll let the applicant go and then take others. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard Hopgood. I'm with law firm Wyatt Tarrant and Combs here in Lexington. I represent the applicant, which is the Germond family. It's Mary Germond and their two sons, Greg and Doug. Greg is right back here in the green shirt. This is a family-owned neighborhood shopping center that has been there since 2000. And although we have the legal parking requirement for this shopping center, operationally we need more parking. And the property next door became available. It fit in with what we need to do in terms of adding parking support. so the Germans have that property under contract purchased subject to obtaining the appropriate zone change. I have here today Steve Baker with Midwest Engineering who can also address a little more in detail any development plan questions and also the property manager Neil Metcalf with Sperry Van Ass is here as well that can talk about any operational issues. As I said, Todd's Center is a neighborhood shopping center. A lot of growth has occurred around it. It has, as a mix of tenants, a number of things, an insurance agency, an exercise and karate studio, BWY wings and Penn Station subs, as was mentioned, a nail salon, a cleaner, barbershop, a package liquor store, a piano store, a cocktail lounge. It's a true mix of neighborhood shopping. And the property adjoining it is zoned AU. Clearly, it's not suited for an agricultural use. And Steve can go into it. It's 50 feet in width at Old Tides Road and about 60 feet in width back on the south end near the Man of War Boulevard. Right away, it varies 360 feet on one side and 413 on another. so it's somewhat of an odd-shaped quadrilateral, I think, is the term. There was a single-family residence at one time. It's been removed. Right now, there is no, I think, if we can, I don't know if we can go back to some of the, there was a photo showing the sidewalk. There's a standard sidewalk in front of Maple Leaf townhomes, but it stops at this property right by that pin oak, which has, I think, wasp galls is what they're telling me, which is news to me, but it ends up killing the branches, and you can see some of the galls up there and the weak branches. But the plan for this development is to extend that sidewalk that runs in front of Maple Leaf Square all the way down to the Todd Center shopping center, which the Germond family owns. as well in the same ownership. And then to make pedestrian connectivity, as Ms. Wade said, which is one of the goals of the 2013 comprehensive plan. Also, the plan is to construct a sidewalk down the shopping center side of that parking. So when people park there, if they want to go to BW Wild Wings, which is at the south end of the center, they can walk down a sidewalk next to the parking lot, won't have to walk through a parking lot either in the shopping center or in this parking field. Mr. Martin had indicated we initially had thought about having both entrances at BW Wild Wings and up near Old Tides Road. Traffic engineering thought that was not the best plan, so we've gone back and changed it to a one-way with entrance at BW Wild Wings and then the parking at an angle along that and then exiting it at Old Tides Road. The, and this is on here, also worth noting is since we exit right here, this whole area up in here, it's about 60 feet, will be maintained as green space. And we're going to use that to gain a lot of a tree canopy to meet the landscaping ordinance. so we'll have both sidewalk and a lot of planning and landscaping there i'm gonna mess this up the as mr martin mentioned is our plan to consolidate once we get through this process assuming we do successfully, that we will consolidate, purchase this track, consolidate into the existing shopping center. So it will be a part of the shopping center for all operational purposes, including maintenance and cleaning. And the lighting that's planned for this will be the lighting, probably a light at each the entrance and the exit, depending on what engineering finally dictates. we're not going to have any access to old tides road it'll be closed off so all the access out to old tides will be through the existing points in the shopping center so that eliminates future requests by someone to do something else to exit on old tides road the stormwater system will the stormwater will be directed back to the shopping center and flow through the existing stormwater So there's no need for any additional stormwater improvements other than to direct the grade back and into an inlet back into the shopping center. We are, and there are a couple of folks here that are owners in Maple Leaf townhomes that will probably want to speak. We've met with them a couple of times. We are proposing to put a six-foot privacy fence all the way down the line and then landscape in some places more than the five feet requirement where we can. Right now you saw some photos. This ends up gathering a lot of trash and rubbish, and so it will be cleaned up. That will be eliminated. You'll have a much better landscaped view from Old Tides Road. I know that there's probably folks that come in there looking for parking. They come in, they drive around. We probably know that some folks are parking off-site in other places and trying to cross Tides Road to get there. It's a popular neighborhood shopping center. This should eliminate that issue and provide for much better traffic integration, which is one of the goals of the comprehensive plan. I would certainly ratify what Ms. Wade said. We meet the goals and objectives set forth in the staff report, both for infill development, support of neighborhood shopping, and pedestrian connectivity through this plan. So we would adopt the staff's analysis, and that's actually in our application as well. I can let Mr. Baker speak if you have any questions about the development plan, or I can try to answer them here. Thank you, Mr. Hopkins. Any questions for Mr. Hopkins or any of his? If not, let me just clarify. I asked about the zone-to-zone screening. the buffering, are you planning to put a five-foot fence in or a six-foot fence? Six foot, all the way down the property line. And talking to the folks in Maple Leaf Town Home, both the President and the Secretary are here and they're both owners there, they want the fence as well. They can speak to that, but we met with them as late as 8.30 this morning. And also I've spoken with Alvin Seals, who's the president of the Cadentown Neighborhood Association. They have no objection to this plan. I've also had a phone call with Pastor Slatter with Cadentown Missionary Baptist Church, and he expressed no concern with this as well. Thank you, Mr. Hopgood. Any other questions? If not, we'll hear from others in the audience that wish to speak on this. We take any that's in favor of this plan first. Anyone that would like to speak in favor of this? I will. Just come forward. Give us your name, please. Name and address. My name is Holly Bauman. I'm sorry, last name? Bauman, B-A-U-M-A-N. Thank you. And I own one, the barbershop in the shopping center. And I just want to testify as to the fact that additional parking will be a great help to all of us in there. There's not always limited parking, but as was said at peak times, it's absolutely nuts. There's people who have to park at different places outside of the property, and then, like they said, walk over from Todd's Road, and it's just nuts. So it would be a huge benefit to all of us if we could get the additional parking. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Others that would like to speak in favor of this? Yes, sir. I'm Gatewood Gay. I'm a property owner at Maple Leaf Square and also on the board of the Homeowners Association. And we are in favor of the parking lot. But we are residential. And what we'd like to see is we have this wonderful natural barrier right now. We'd like to pick a few trees out. Like, can we keep these? We'd like to flag some of these trees. certainly there's some old ones that got to come out that'd be great and then lighting like I say we are residential gosh you think about your own home you want a big bright light coming in through your window we'd like to mitigate that as much okay thank you all right thank you others I'd like to speak in favor yes ma'am My name is Diane Holder, and I'm the manager of Cocktails Bar and Grill. We would like to see this proposal go ahead. We could use additional parking. We lose business sometimes because there is not enough parking places in the center. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Others that would like to speak? Others in opposition of this that would like to speak? Seeing none. Thank you. Before we move on, any final thoughts? Mr. Hopgood, any sort of rebuttal or anything? Clarified trees, lighting? Yes, as far as the trees, we're happy. We've been working with Mr. Gay and Ms. Nictor, who is one of the owners, and she's, I think, the secretary of the board. We're happy when we produced the final development plan with the landscape plans to meet with them, and we can identify on that plan trees that we can keep in order to still make this work. And also there's an old fence line. There are some stuff that needs to be cleaned up. There's old wire fencing. So we spoke this morning about actually even to the point when we get with a contractor to meet with them and we can literally go down the line and decide we want to get this. There's some scrubby locusts and things like that. This can come out. This can stay. So we're fully committed to working with them to try to maintain the boundary and do what we need to do. Okay. Thank you, sir. Staff, anything? Can't see you. Since the landscaping is something that it appears to be sort of not a regular tree preservation area, they would want to remove some and leave some. I don't think the staff would suggest conditional zoning restrictions for that. However, we could put on a conditional zoning restriction related to lighting if the Planning Commission wanted to. Yes. Mr. Penn. Tracy, can we put a conditional restriction on that that the light would be directed toward the parking lot and not diffused all over the area? Yes, and typically our wording is that lighting, any lighting on the property be directed away from residential zoning and uses. Would that be the way you'd want to address this? And then we can put a limit, height limit on it if you felt that was necessary too. Well, I just think the neighborhood should be protected from light as much as they can and still keep safety in the parking lot. I mean, I don't know how to do that, but I know it can be done. Yeah, it's typically either a 20 or 25 foot height limit and then directed away from residential land use and zoning. Tracy, would that be on the zone change recommendations? It would be. It looks like Mr. Sally's writing something while I'm up here. And we would need a, so in compliance with Article 6-7 of the zoning ordinance, the Planning Commission wishes to impose a conditional zoning restriction related to lighting. And then the reason. It'd be number 12 on this then. Well, it wouldn't usually be added to the development plan notes. It's usually with the findings for the Planning Commission's action on the zone change. So instead of just a 1 and a 2, we'd have a number 3. So we can do that. I think that's Ms. Wade. I think, yes, Mr. Sally. I am working on something to put on the overhead for your consideration. Thank you, sir. Just another minute. Thank you. Well, Mr. Sally, keep working on that. Any questions from the commission while he's working on that? if not thank everyone and I'll close this part of the hearing and wait for before I do that we need to see what he's writing just to make sure that everybody is in agreement with it please I can walk you through this. Okay, thank you, sir. This would be a number three, which is not appearing on your agenda, and we're just borrowing the language from another item on your agenda today that would read under the provisions of Article 6-7 of the Zoning Ordinance the following use restriction is recommended via conditional zoning that should be for the B1 zone on the subject property. Number one, any lighting shall be directed downward and away from any residential zone adjacent to this location. And then where the arrow is, that's the necessary finding to impose that type of condition. This draft is that this restriction is necessary to protect the adjacent neighborhoods from potential, I should say light pollution. Potential light pollution. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Saleh. Mr. Hopgood, you okay with that language? Yes, we are. Okay, thank you, sir. Commission members, any questions before we move on? Any questions in regards to the additional condition? If not, thank you. I'll close this part of the hearing, open it up for any discussion and or motions. Mr. Cravens. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to move approval of MAR 2016-5 and adding a third condition under staff reasons for approval. Thank you. We have a motion for approval. MAR 2016-5 with three conditions now. The motion was seconded by Mr. Berkley. Any questions on the motion? If not, please vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. And then the ZDP. Mr. Chairman, move approval of ZDP 2016-21, the revised conditions. 10, looks like 10 conditions. Thank you. Motion's been made and seconded by Ms. Richardson for approval of ZDP 2016-21 with the revised 10 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank everyone for coming. We'll move on to page 7. It's item 2, Anderson Village at Great Acres, LLC. Zoning amendment in Great House, I'm sorry, property village at Great Acres. Zoning development plan, MAR 2016-6. We do have a ZDP 2016-22. We have revised conditions with that. That's on a blue sheet of paper. and Mr. Emmons is also passing out a variance request as well. That's awfully expensive. Yeah, I'd love to have one. As is staff setting up and so forth, We're going to take just a brief recess, and we'll try and get through this, and when we come back in about five minutes. Thank you. If everyone take their seats, we'll resume. Ms. White. Good afternoon. Our next item on the agenda is MARV 2016-6. This is a request by Anderson Village at Great Acres, LLC. It's on page 7 of our agenda and behind tab 2 in the Planning Commission's notebooks. The staff has received some correspondence related to this application. There are two emails in support of the request and 22 in opposition, as well as a petition submitted, and I will circulate those. The petitioner is requesting a rezoning for 2731 Leestown Road and a portion of 2751 Leestown Road from three different zones, two of them single family, an R1D and an R1E zone, and then the third zone is an agricultural urban zone. They are proposing to rezone to the planned neighborhood residential, which is our R3 zone, and the highway service business zone, which is a B3 zone. There is also a variance requested with this application, and a traffic study has also been submitted by the applicant for the project. The subject property is located on the northeast side of Leastown Road, outside of New Circle Road in Fayette County. It's very near Masterson Station Park on the aerial that everyone can see. Masterson Station Park is to the northwest of the subject property. The proposal, although not very clear within this, I'll clarify in a minute, The 50 acres proposed for rezoning is primarily bound or near single-family residential development. There are a few townhouses that have been developed within the Masterson Station area, but primarily single-family residential in the subdivisions around this area, including Masterson Station, the Leesway subdivision, which has been at this location for a very long time, as well as McConnell's Trace, which is across Leastown Road, Spicewood, Mare Haven, and then Bracktown, which is further out Leastown Road. Masterson Station is the park itself is just beyond our urban service boundary. So on this map, the urban service boundary comes down Leastown Road and then goes here kind of in a V shape along the rear property lines of a number of residential tracks within the Masterson Station subdivision. Within a quarter of a mile from this subject area, the zoning changes, and our larger scale map makes it a little bit clearer. The primary land use changes from being residential in this area to being a combination of commercial, agricultural, and industrial. So there's a B3 tract to the southeast between Robinson Way and what is now Citation Boulevard. In addition, there is industrial land. Further, as you come into town on Leastown Road, it's actually primarily industrial with some institutional uses as well. There's a school, the community college, the prisons outside the vet hospital. Thank you. So it's a combination of uses. But from Robinson Way, going out of town to the north is primarily residential in character. The majority of the subject property was rezoned previously in 1997 to a single-family residential zone. At that time, they left 12 acres in an AU configuration on the property in order to maintain the Great Acres nursery. at that location. And our overhead does show where the AU zoning is currently today in a configuration along Leastown up next to the Leaseway subdivision. The remainder of the property was rezoned to single family residential in the R1E and R1D zones. At that time, Lucille Drive was proposed to connect to Leastown Road, as it is in this proposal as well. And there were greenways identified through the comprehensive plan, and again, those still are part of the applicant's proposal today as well. The petitioner, let me actually show you a few photographs of the area before we get too far. This is an aerial view of the subject property, and you can see most of the activity that's occurring on the property is not in the single-family residential area. It's actually on the AU parcel where the nursery is located and has been operating since 1990. This is the area in red on the overhead where they're proposing to rezone to B3. And then the rest of the property is proposed to be rezone to the R3 zone. And this area really corresponds somewhat to the entrance road, Lucille Drive, connecting in this vicinity. And then they do propose also to extend another stub street, which is Summerfield Drive from the northwest into the property and have an intersection with Lucille Drive. This is the photo of the existing entrance to the nursery, and it's directly across from Chestnut Ridge Drive along Leastown Road. Leastown Road was recently widened. The project was completed late last year. It's currently a four-lane highway, and it does have dedicated turn lanes from Leestown Road into where Lucille Drive would connect, so into the Great Acres nursery location. This photograph shows the dedicated left from the inbound traffic for Leestown Road that would allow for a traffic signal at this location. There is bits and pieces of greenway that are adjoining the subject property. This is a view toward the subject property from Masterson Station Drive. So this area has already been designated a greenway and is owned by LFUCG, and it's been naturalized. Sorry. From Summerfield Drive, which is the Stub Street, this is a view towards the nursery. It's a bit of an uphill topographic change in this location. And then this is the view currently from Lucille Drive, which is a sub-stub street from the northeast. The creek that traverses the property is just beyond the end of pavement here where the trees are. The petitioner is requesting a combination of the R3 and the B3 zone in order to construct or develop a mixed-use development. They're proposing approximately 53,000 square feet of commercial, again, along Leastown and where Lucille Drive enters the property. And then the rest in a residential area is approximately 42 acres. They're proposing 570 dwelling units, which is a combination of townhouses and multifamily dwelling units. That represents a density of 13.67 units per acre. The petitioner contends that their proposal is in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan, and specifically two areas, the goals and objectives, as well as several of the policy statements within the Comprehensive Plan. There were eight goals and objectives that the applicant mentioned in their justification that we presented in the staff report as well related to expanding housing choices, supporting infill and redevelopment within our urban service boundary, identifying opportunities for infill that respects an area's context and design features, providing for well-designed neighborhoods, expanding options for mixed use throughout Lexington, providing quality of life opportunities that attract young professionals in a workforce of all ages, developing a viable network of accessible transportation alternatives, including transit, bicycles, walkways, and greenways, and then lastly, encouraging the development of underutilized property within the urban service boundary. The staff felt it was important to also mention two other goals that related to preservation of the floodplain. theme a goal 3d indicates we should minimize disruption to natural features when we're building new communities and theme b goal 3a says that we should identify and protect our natural natural resources and landscapes before development occurs the petitioner is also contending as i mentioned that they're in agreement with several policy statements from the plan first related to locating higher density near greenways and public parks. Second, building green infrastructure and trails throughout the community. Third, utilizing single loaded streets adjacent to our greenways. And then fourth, that the placemaking standards, which are outlined in our comprehensive plan, are being met. And the petitioner's strongest point from the staff's perspective is related to the placemaking standards. When we look at the comprehensive plan, the placemaking standards sort of pull some of the goals and objectives together, and they encourage creating an inviting streetscape, varied housing choices, abundant open space, neighborhood focal points, and creating quality connections to other amenities such as parks or other commercial development. The petitioner, we believe, is meeting the goals and objectives, as well as these policy statements from the comprehensive plan in a few ways. First, they're incorporating their floodplain into the greenways and are using that as an amenity within their development. They're facing townhouses towards the existing pond on the property. They are also creating a focal point with the commercial development on the property, and then they're providing multimodal connections via the greenways to either side, both to the southeast and to the northwest to the park and to what's planned for another B3 property to the east or southeast. When evaluating the proposed B3 zone, the staff had some concern because it does allow for a number of highway-oriented business uses, and the staff suggests at this point that we restrict some of those uses from the subject property. The applicant did propose a list of conditional zoning restrictions, and the staff suggested adding a few more to that particular list, and we feel that's important to more fully meet the comprehensive plans, recommendations related to compatible development and also respecting existing neighborhoods. The suggested conditional zoning restrictions, you can find those in the staff report as well as on the agenda. there's a list of maybe 10 or 11 uses that the staff believes should be prohibited at this location including hotels and motels establishments for the display selling cars boats etc drive-in restaurants tattoo parlors carnivals and circuses pawn shops the adult uses advertising signs which are billboards cocktail lounges and nightclubs as a principal use. And then our outdoor recreation facilities that are permitted in the B3 zone are a bit more high intense. They're like go-kart tracks, archery parks, trampoline centers, that sort of thing. The staff believes those aren't really appropriate so near the neighborhood either. The staff is recommending approval of the proposed zone change, as did the zoning committee three weeks ago. For the reasons mentioned in my report so far, this is in agreement with the comprehensive plan and the policy statements of the plan. And we believe that it will provide for expanded housing choices in this vicinity. And also it proposes to utilize the floodplain for greenway improvements, which is an important part of the comprehensive plan, too. Happy to answer any questions about the staff's recommendation. Questions for Ms. Wade? Don't see any at this time. Thank you. Thank you. And who's next? Mr. Martin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, the preliminary development plan for your consideration today is ZDP 2016-22, the Great House property. We have handed out for you a blue sheet with some revised recommendations based on the revised plan that you see before you today. Here is the Leestown Road frontage in this location. Here's Leesway Drive that adjoins the property. Here we have Lucille Drive that will be extended down through the property to an intersection here with Leestown Road. And here we have Summerfield, which comes around like this and will come through and connect and also serve this property as well. This is the large pond that you see on the property that will serve as a stormwater facility as well as an amenity. You can see the large green areas around it. This dash line that you see on the plan is the Greenway Trail proposed location. That will be part of the overall Greenway Trail system that is existing in this area and has been planned for the area as well. This area, as pointed out on the overhead before, is the B3 area. You can see the commercial buildings that they are proposing. Convenience store, gas pumps in this location. drugstore, bank, and then two commercial buildings. The commercial buildings, as you can see, are oriented towards open space and plaza areas here. The entrance into the proposed development has a median now and is a wide boulevard-type entrance. One of the concerns that staff had initially was with how this would function relative to this intersection. This modified plan has a write-in only, which will help with the circulation and help lessen any impact coming off of Leastown Road. There is access into this lot in this location, which will allow patrons of the business access internally and then out of the development to Lucille, if necessary, and desired. Lucille is a collector. it will eventually connect to spur road and will come again and serve this entire area of the community in the neighborhoods staff initially had concerns because they were not showing it as a full collector to public standards this plan has been revised and they are now showing it this is the particular cross section that reflects that this will be a full residential collector matching the existing collector they have and this was an initial desire of theirs that staff supported they had a desire to try to slow traffic and this will undoubtedly carry a considerable amount of traffic as a collector with the amount of residential development we've had over the years now in the area though they are proposing a circle traffic circle right here Central, which is also part of the development and the orientation and integrated into the commercial aspect of the development. There had been some discussion about where to place something like that to help slow traffic down. You can see the gentle curve that they have. This is an improvement over the previous plan as well. Staff had concerns, along with traffic engineering with the spacing they had originally proposed. This plan has addressed that. They've spaced it out further and have better controls and better angles on their internal circulation. And again, as I stated, Summerfield will be a public street coming through here to public standards, as will Lucille. They have modified their internal streets to a little bit smaller right-of-way that you can see. Again, they integrated the system. It's connected with parking areas. These are townhouses, by the way, that you see here. This is the single-loaded street oriented to the amenity. The apartments they're proposing are concentrated more in the middle of the development. The total square footage on the 51 net acres is over 587,000 square feet. The majority of that, 535,000 plus, is residential. They are proposing a little over 53,500 square feet within the commercial area. The number of parking spaces total for the residential is 938. There's a lot of parking being provided within the development to serve the residential development. Again, you can see, however, though, there's a lot of green space, a lot of good orientation internally for this to be an integrated development. There are some interesting aspects that will have to be dealt with with the final development plan. Again, this is a nice amenity. This is floodplain that comes through here. This crosshatched area is an existing area of floodplain that will have to be modified by a letter of map revision. You all have heard us talk about that quite a bit over the years now, that they will have to go to FEMA. They'll have to submit permits, engineering, design, just to build Summerfield. That's going to be part of the requirement. And that will create a situation where this area will be undoubtedly modified with that letter of map revision. That will remove conflicts that exist with this building and this building. And that will have to be reconciled and taken care of before these can be constructed in these locations because of the floodplain as well as the floodplain setback, which we've indicated to you here. This is an area that they're showing for potential mitigation for any impacts they would have on the floodplain. One area that they may have to deal with if this design is not modified slightly, you can see, again, the internal circulation that they're showing here. The creek comes down through here and actually will be impacted if this is constructed in this manner, about 100, 150 feet of creek. They will be required to do mitigation. That may be what they're going to do here. It's uncertain where they'll do the mitigation, but a certain amount of mitigation will be required by the federal and state regulations by the impact on that small stream in that location. We have highlighted for you the line between the B3 and the R3 request. This is the areas that are impacted by the variance that Mr. Emmons is going to discuss with you. This plan was recommended for approval by your subdivision committee. Your staff is recommending approval of this revised plan that you see before you today. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Questions for Mr. Martin? Mr. Martin, let me ask you one thing. You were referring to the openness, green space, and so forth. The triangular green space, it's hard for me to see from here. Are those walkways? No, up, up, up. Yeah, there you go. These show paths, trails, sidewalks through these. They certainly have no doubt, and there will be a final development plan as well. that I'm sure they're intending to utilize that as an amenity for this development. All right. Any other questions for Mr. Martin? If not, I think we've got one more staff member. Here he comes, this way. Mr. Emmons. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, actually, after my presentation, I'm used to going last, but there is also a summary of the traffic impact study after my presentation. I will be fairly quick presenting the dimensional variance that was requested. As Mr. Murphy will tell you, the variance request is actually very simple. It's very hard to describe in words, and so I've prepared a PowerPoint presentation with a lot of pictures to help simplify that. First, as we look, you're well aware of where this location is. I won't go over that. You've seen the development plan. Leastown Road, Summerfield Drive, and Lucille Drive are the only public streets. All of the rest of the areas that you see in here are private access easements or private drives, private roadways in some way. To kind of zoom in on the area between the B3 and the R3 zone, the applicant has requested a variance to eliminate the zone-to-zone screening. internal to the development where the private roadway serves as a boundary. To make this simple, there are six segments where there is an interface between the B3 and the R3 zone. One of those segments is in the middle of Lucille Drive, a public street, and a variance is not needed there. one of the segments between the commercial and the townhouses or the apartment building next door is going to be in a green area, and it will be able to meet the requirement. So out of those six segments, that leaves four segments that the variance would apply to. In all of these segments, you can see it goes along some of their private roadways. And the applicant's contention is that the private roadways will act as their public streets. They'll serve the same function. And the staff agrees with that logic, saying that those private roadways are going to function as private local streets. If they were public, it would not require that. The most important thing that the staff noted is that the perimeter of the subject property, the zone-to-zone screening, will remain. in particular along Leesway and along the Masterson Station area. Overall, the applicant is promoting an integrated pedestrian-friendly mixed-use development. It's the intent of our zoning ordinance and our screening ordinance to buffer incompatible uses. By the applicant's very design in this particular case, they're actually promoting to integrate the commercial areas and the residential. And if the variance is granted, what you will end up with is eliminating the unnecessary landscaping and leaving in the ones where it is appropriate. The Landscape Review Committee did meet at their regularly scheduled meeting. They did recommend approval of this. one of the things that was noted in the layout of their overall subdivision is that you don't have anywhere where you've got the fronts of the residential looking at the back of the commercial. And they felt that was also an important consideration when looking at this variance. That concludes my presentation. I have summarized the staff recommendation for approval, which is listed both on your agenda and the staff report. The staff is recommending approval subject to five conditions. The first four are fairly standard. Condition number five is specific to this one, that the final landscaping plan, once it's submitted to the Division of Building Inspection, also submitted to the Division of Planning simply so that we can put it in the file and have a record of that. If you have any questions for me, I would be happy to try and answer them. Otherwise, I'll be happy to turn this presentation over. Thank you, Mr. Emmons. Any questions? Yes, Mr. Pound. I think you answered it with your last statement, but should this development plan change, this is a preliminary development plan, should LOMA come back and make the need for the development plan to change, does the variance change also? That is a very good question because the way that the applicant has worded their variance, they've essentially worded this so that it's a performance standard. And you are correct that if the development plan does change, because the zoning boundaries will not change without another zone change request, but if the development plan does change between now and the final development plan, if it still meets the performance standard of being in one of the private roadways, then yes, it will apply. If not, they will have to meet the required landscaping. Other questions for Mr. Emmons? I've got one question, and I'm sure you can answer it. It's not related to the variance. Just the location, once again. I was just reading through some of these comments from the emails and so forth, and they were referring to Masterson Station Park and the equestrian park and riding of horses and et cetera. That's on out the road, isn't it? Tracy's coming down. I believe the answer is yes, but I'm going to let her answer that. Yes, I tried to make that point earlier that the park itself is to the northwest of the subject property, and they don't have any shared boundaries. So where people, citizens, or visitors are utilizing the park, this development won't have a direct impact on their potential use of the park and riding, and other soccer, other uses out there. It is not taking away from the park property. Thank you. Any other questions at this point for any one of the staff? We're going to try and get to everyone as we go forward. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Oh, yeah, the traffic study. There is a traffic impact study that is required by the zoning ordinance for this zone change, and you should have at your place a one-page staff report from the staff of the MPO, which has reviewed this. The traffic study was conducted by Integrated Engineering, and it anticipates a full build-out of this proposed development in the year 2024, that is eight years from now. That is always very interesting information to the staff to see kind of what the expected timeline of a particular development is. In the middle part of the staff report, Leastown Road is classified as a minor arterial, and as Ms. Wade showed in her photos and mentioned to you, it has been recently widened. The traffic counts on Lee's Town Road have all been conducted prior to the completion of the improvements. Outside of the urban service area, here to the north and west of Ruffian Way, which is the main entrance to Masterson Station Park, the latest count is an average daily trips, 9,586. In the urban portion of Leastown Road to the southeast of the proposed development, if you will, the latest counts from 2013 show 20,336 daily trips. It would be very interesting to know what the current traffic counts show now that the road's been improved. The trip generation from the proposed development is estimated at 2,148 trips daily. If all of that traffic went to Lee's Town Road, that would be approximately a 10% increase in the latest traffic count information from three years ago. Of those, some 935 are expected in the AM peak and 1,213 expected by the study in the PM peak. And, of course, those are part of the traffic study analysis. Finally, in concluding, the conclusion of the MPO staff is that the traffic study has met the zoning ordinance requirements in Article VI for the information contained in this study. Dr. Suclin is present here at your hearing should you have any questions of their office's review of this study. But I thank you, and I'd be glad to also answer any questions from the Commission at this time. Questions, Mr. Sally? Or any questions on the traffic study? No. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. At this point, what... Yes, sir? That does conclude the staff presentation. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Just to let everyone know, at this point, we'll hear from the applicant. We'll proceed on to others, citizens that may have... that may be here in support of this, and then proceed on to those that are in opposition. and please take note of page one I think is an obvious agenda. We will be imposing time limits here. Yes, sir, Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to be here today representing the village of Great Acres. Dennis Anderson is here with me from Anderson Communities, which is the developer, and we have a design team with us. Mike Kraft, development manager for Dennis, is here. We have a group from Integrated Engineering, which has worked on our plan. Eddie Mesta from Integrated, who's our traffic engineer and who wrote the traffic, or who authored the traffic study, which you have. Steve Garland, our design engineer from Integrated. Brett Malloy, who worked on the traffic study as well. and John Strom is with me who is the in-house attorney for Anderson Communities Chaz Hyde is with me who assists me on research one person who is not here who has worked on this and has had a major role on this and that's Steve Austin as some of you all may know Steve Austin was the former executive director of Bluegrass Tomorrow which was as you all are familiar is an organization for good planning and the bluegrass Mr. Austin is now a private landscape consultant in Washington State, but Dennis has consulted with him before and wanted to work with Mr. Austin on this. So this plan which you have before you today is a collaborative effort of Dennis and Steve Austin and Integrated Engineering. The first draft was drawn up by Steve Austin, and Integrated has put it into life, and our development plan, and we're pleased to have that before you. We think that the team and the development method we have on the plan has been worth it, and we think we have a very outstanding plan for you to present to you today. As staff has recommended to you, as has mentioned to you, this is a mixed-use development, and it consists of residential, which we see up on the overhead, and you can see on the plan which the staff has drawn up, which consists of townhouses, single-family attached dwellings, and apartment buildings in the middle, and a neighborhood commercial area. It includes a number of features we want to point out to you. The multipurpose trail is perhaps one of the most important amenities these days with residents. We have the trail which ties into the city system at three points. Here at Masters and Stations Subdivision, there's an existing trail, and there's, I understand, one over here, and there's a proposed one coming in from the north. So we're going to tie into all these three, have our trail coming through the greenway. And on here, you're going to be able to walk from this point or this point over here through our development over to through Masters and Stations Subdivision. You can go up to the Masterson Station Park, which takes you down toward Leestown Road. You cross Leestown Road. You get in the trails in McConnell's Trace, which Anderson Communities has developed, and go down to the Town Branch Trail, which takes you eventually all the way down to downtown. It now goes past Alexandria Drive, and as you know, there was funding in the state plan for New Circle Road to bring it under New Circle. So this is a very significant multi-use trail, pedestrian and bicycle trail, which is one of the center points of our development here. We have the retaining of the pond, the farm pond, is retained. I want to emphasize it's retained because I know there's been concern among neighbors that we're taking it away, that birds land there during migrations and geese land there. The pond we're showing is staying. It's a focal point for the development as well. and there's about 11 acres up here which we're not developing. It's staying in green space in the pond, as you can see. We have a community commercial center down along toward Leastown Road, coming up Lucille Drive. That's a very important part of this, which will have coffee shops, dry cleaners, restaurants, drugstore, drugstore there and a bank there, which is a very important part of the development as well. We show street continuity. We have Lucille Drive, which is a major collector, which stubs right now. All the plans of the city have it coming down through Leastown Road to here. We have Summerfield Drive coming in, as called for on the plans. We have a step-down in densities. We have three-story apartment buildings here, but around our perimeter we have two-story townhouse units. These are townhouses coming up here. We have this green space between us and the development off of Lucille Drive. And I want to emphasize, for instance, just one example over here on these townhouses, which are adjacent to the Masters and Stations subdivision. We have rotated those townhouses 90 degrees, so there's only one end unit which is adjacent to the Masters and Stations subdivision. So instead of looking at six or seven units in the back, or looking at a garage or looking at the back door of a townhouse, you're looking at the side of one unit. There's about seven lots up and down here. We have seven. There will be seven units along our border right there. And we have walkability, as the staff has mentioned. Obviously, we don't only have the trail. You can't really make it out on these plans, but we have sidewalks and pedestrian ways coming in. This is the existing residence on the property. that's a log cabin which we hope to keep as the clubhouse we've kept the vista open down to the pond as you can see here we have you can walk into there you can walk over to our commercial area the whole point is here that when you get home at night you can leave your car and you can if you want to get something to eat you can walk out there if you want to take a walk on the trail you can walk out there to do that if you want to see the pond you can do that if you want to walk out see one of your neighbors you can do that that's an important feature for the people who desire this type of quality development we have traffic calming here we have along the seal as you can see as the staff mentioned we have instead of taking a straight shot from this point to this point which are set points we have a gentle curve which slows traffic i've learned from traffic engineers that when you have buildings next to a roadway having the buildings there instead of a parking lot tends to slow traffic down as well so we've mr austin has proposed and we put in there those features there and we have a traffic circle which also slows traffic so we're trying to slow traffic on lucille drive as it comes down to lee's town road we do have a restaurant there's one mention in the development plan notes about showing that we have enough parking for restaurants we So the calculations assumed at least 8,000 square feet of restaurants in there. So we do have that, and we'll reflect that on the final calculations. This is modeled on Townley Center. And let's see here. I can. And Townley has a variety of housing types. These are some of the three-story apartment buildings which are in Townley. And these are photographs, by the way. These aren't renderings. These are photographs. These are two-story townhouses which are in Townley. We have varying setbacks and architectural features on the units. This is another photograph of Townley, which has the porches and stoops and the walkways and the varying architectural features on that. We have restaurants. The restaurants are an important element. In Townley, we have a Chinese restaurant, a Mexican restaurant, an Applebee's. We have a vinaigrette salad restaurant. We have an A&W. We have a firehouse sub in there. So it's important to have a variety of restaurant uses because people want that and view that as an amenity. As I said, we're assuming 8,000 square feet of restaurants on the property. the also appealing on this is a lack of maintenance responsibilities yet in this development the outdoor maintenance will be done by the ownership of the management so you don't have to cut grass you don't have to plant plant flowers but you will have grass and you will have flowers here interior maintenance is done by the management as well and that appeals to a lot of people especially millennials now and empty nesters who don't want maintenance responsibilities. Some of us like to get exercise by cutting our grass and gardening, and other people would just as soon go to the exercise facility, which is right there, and let somebody else cut their grass. It's just a matter of preference, but we try to accommodate people with different preferences and different goals in their lives. as you know people had the same concerns about Townley about mixing uses when we got this approved 15 years ago and it's turned out very well I just showed this slide to show you that it got the Mayor's Award for Best Suburban or Infill Project when it was dedicated in 2006 and there's another article about another award Dennis received for Townley Center So there were concerns about mixing uses, just as there are today. But we've done it in Townley. It has worked out. It's not only worked out well, it's an award-winning community. There's, again, a photograph on which our development is overlaid on the property. You can see the number of rooftops we have in this area. I think everything you can see around there is single-family detached. as Ms. Wade mentioned just off the photograph here there's a major employment center. We think it's important not just to have housing variety but to have a housing variety for people who can work nearby. This is another photograph and I just want to emphasize, I put this in here to underline something Mr. Chairman you had asked about and that is Masters of Station Park. We are located right here on this Masters and Station Park is not contiguous to us, but it is nearby. And I know you know this, but I need to say it on the record, because a lot of the petitions and the comments you saw that we counted up, and maybe at least 25%, maybe 38% of the people, thought that we were developing Masters and Station Park. There were a number of comments made to the effect that I have ridden horses at Masters and Station Park. You know there's an equine program there. And it's terrible that the city would allow Dennis Anderson to develop Masterson Station Park and take away the equine program. And I want to emphasize that is not happening. This property we have right here is owned by Bill Greathouse of the Greathouse family. It is privately owned. He has operated most of it as a garden center for the last 20 years. The front part is a magnificent lawn. it has one of the best lawns in lexington i guess you compare it to shriner's hospital and he has kept it up and operated the garden center for at least 20 years and it's he's decided it's it's time to time to finish it up and it's on the market and it was on the market until dennis got the contract on it and we're very pleased that we can have the contract on this and do a development which is exactly like that which is proposed in the comprehensive plan do need to talk about the comprehensive plan some of the staff had talked about it but when we filed our application in in proposing this to you in going through the comprehensive plan in looking at it it was as if the comprehensive plan were written for this property because in going through it of Of course, Steve Austin and Dennis and Integrated Engineering were aware of what the comprehensive plan calls for, but this has been planned in accordance with all the major principles for residential development in the 2013 comprehensive plan. We talk about the physical layout, growing successful communities, and that the ideal structure of a neighborhood is composed of places to reside, work, shop, learn, and play. And Chapter 3 talks about growing successful neighborhoods, and they talk about five points, which we'll go over just a little bit more in the next one. And that includes growing successful neighborhoods, creates a sense of place through inviting streetscape and varied housing choices. And as I've mentioned to you, we have townhomes and apartments. There are plenty of single-family detached in the area around us. Along with the neighborhood commercial center, we have housing choice. we have abundant private and open space as called for in the comprehensive plan and we have neighborhood focal points you can see the focal points we have are the the pond the trail the clubhouse the commercial area on here all send all create a sense of place it's important to create an identity which we have done in townley with the commercial there and which we're attempting to do here with the four items I mentioned to you. We have, in successful communities, also have quality connections to parks, schools, and stores. We don't have a school nearby, but we certainly connect with the parks through the trails and the stores and commercial. We encourage, we design this to encourage people to walk to our commercial areas. and the comprehensive plan even singles out Townley and the relationship to Metathorpe which is the older single family residential across the street and we point out that in the comprehensive plan Townley and Metathorpe complement each other as an edge community and they blend into each other and provide services to each other and that has worked out extremely well at Townley the comprehensive plan talks about growing successful neighborhoods and we've just highlighted a few of these things everything we mentioned points everything we show points to this but we wanted to highlight the ones in red where we talk about public green space size and location and neighborhoods with higher densities and smaller residential lots needs public green space which we have here, 11 acres of it up here in addition to scattered throughout. We have new trails, parks, and green space as shown on the second bullet point there we have highlighted. Over on the other side, create development regulations that locate higher density housing nearest public open space, which again we have to make the trail available to everybody. And I might point out too, we have a single loaded street here to make this trail available to all. Instead of having single family houses which often fence off their backyards and make it impossible to get to trails, we have purposely made a single loaded street here to allow everyone access into the trails. No fences to keep people off of it. And finally, we create design measures that reduce congestion by connecting neighborhood collector streets to arterial roads, which we have done here. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail on all these, but there's constant themes in the comprehensive plan, which we agree with, walkability, having the green infrastructure, which we mentioned, and having the greenways. Chapter 6 talks about the balance between urban uses and safeguarding rural lands and using infill throughout the urban service area, not just downtown, encouraging economic investment in established communities, which we're doing here, pedestrian-scale transportation with our pedestrian and bicycle facilities, flexibility in housing types, which we're showing, and the density in land uses that allow for a diversity of citizens. In the goals and objectives of the staff mentioned, we meet the goals and objectives, and they, again, point to a development such as this, just in the B up there on the right side, that we should plan for housing that addresses the market needs for all of Lexington and Fayette County residents, including mixed use and housing near employment and commercial centers, which is exactly what we're providing here. And C is planning for safe, affordable, accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disadvantaged residents. We are, this is a market rate development. It's not what you'd call affordable in quotes, as we call, but it's market rate. but it definitely meets the needs of older and disadvantaged residents. Going on in goal A about growing successful neighborhoods, goal 2 is support redevelopment throughout the urban service area as a strategic component of growth. And just going on there on the right side, highlighting B and C, which is having places for positive social interaction between people. And that's what we do. And what we found is that people like to interact on the sidewalks and on the trails. One interesting thing I found from Dennis is that front porches are nice, and we think of those as the interaction places, but people like to have control over their interactions and often like to have them out on the sidewalk or on the trail instead of having them on the porch. Interesting little fact, but we have plenty of places for that in this area. And we minimize the disruption of natural features. We're keeping the pond and the topography of the land. We also reduce Lexington's carbon footprint. We want people to leave their cars and walk around. We're protecting the landscapes within the pond, as Ms. Wade mentioned. and this one is provide entertainment and other quality of life opportunities that attract young professionals and a workforce of all ages and talents to Lexington. As we mentioned before, there's a trend now, especially among millennials, but often with empty nesters as well, that they don't want to have what they view as a burden of home ownership, of maintaining their yard, maintaining the house, And this is something that is a choice. We'll never get rid of single-family detached housing, but we have to recognize that there is the growing segment, which is growing, wants something like this. Maybe not as many as single-family detached, but we have thousands in the area. But there's a growing segment of this population that wants this type of community to have other priorities other than taking care of your yard and worrying about the plumbing in your house. We agree with the goals about improving a desirable community, especially B, you can see a network of accessible transportation alternatives, including pedestrian. On the next one, on the goals and objectives, I'm trying to go fast, but we meet so many of them. There's so many here. We need to go over some of them. uphold the urban service area concept, absorb vacant and underutilized land. That's A on the left side, absorb underutilized land within the urban service area. And B on here is to encourage compact, contiguous, and or mixed use sustainable development within the urban service area as guided by market demand to accommodate future growth needs. And that's exactly what we're doing, mixed use, guided by market demand to accommodate future growth needs here on this property. And I might mention that this property, for at least the last 20 years, has been designated, even when we had the maps, was designated previously as medium density residential, which allowed apartments, which allowed townhouses, which allowed duplexes as well as single-family homes from at least back, I went back to the 1996 comprehensive plan for at least 20 years. Masterson Station around us was designated low density back at that time, but we were designated medium density. And so it was always in the plan to have a mixture of dwelling units on this particular property. I want to talk about a couple topics that are important to people, one of which is property values. We've heard that in the comments, which you saw in the petition. And people have asked me, well, have you done a study of property values in the area? Well, there have been national studies of this done by two institutions, MIT and Harvard. the MIT study was in 2005 as you can see their conclusion was we find that large dense multifamily rental developments do not negatively impact the sales price of nearby single family homes our findings are transferable to similar developments in towns such as the one study and the next one is from Harvard University in 2006 and in that one they concluded that working communities with multifamily dwellings actually have higher property values than other types of working communities, and that for residents in neighborhoods near proposed apartment development, it is important to understand that proposed multifamily housing rental developments do not generally lower property values in surrounding areas. I think some of these studies included affordable housing on that, too. It's important to recognize that these have been studied nationwide, and we have experience locally. We have experience in Townley, which is a mixed residential and commercial development, where property values in Metathorpe and in Townley itself have certainly stayed outstanding. And in McConnell's Trace, which is a mixture. If you haven't been out there, it has a lot of multifamily in the rear, and property values are very good in that area as well. We have Bob Stucker, who's the president of the McConnell-Straight's Neighborhood Association. We asked her to come to be able to tell you about that if needed. I want to talk about traffic a little bit. We had a traffic study done. Mr. Mesta is here and can answer any questions about it. I want to point out that at one point in the traffic study, they did indicate that at the intersection of Masterson Station Drive and Leastown Road, we would increase the wait time here. And I would point out that whatever goes in here will supply some traffic over there and have some increase to the wait time. But the wait time, they had to calculate based on the current timing of the traffic signal at Masterson Station Drive and Leastown Road. The timing is going to be adjusted based upon new Leastown Road and this. And I needed to point out that the wait time will not be nearly as long as we indicated in the traffic study once the timing of the light is adjusted after this is done. But for the study purposes, they're required to assume that the timing of the light stays exactly the way it is today. We know it won't, but that was in the traffic study. They demonstrated that the area, the traffic pattern, will not put a burden on Leastown Road or the surrounding roads here. I wanted to talk a little bit about, and as I said, we purposely didn't make Lucille Drive a straight shot in here. We slowed the traffic down on that with the roundabout, the curve, and the buildings near the roadway. So stormwater, and questions we do plan on using the pond as part of the stormwater system. We've had questions as, are we going to be backing up that pond onto neighboring lots? And the answer is, we're not allowed to do that. But there is a floodplain here, and people have observed that the pond gets higher and it gets lower, it gets higher during periods of heavy rain. And it is a floodplain, and we've had this discussion before. that's what floodplains are for. Floodplains flood and they're supposed to flood and that's because the theory now is that allowing them to flood is the best way to handle the storm water. It keeps it clean, it does not disturb the vegetation, does not disturb the downstream. So if there's flooding now, which we don't think there is around this but it'll continue to ebb and flow if you will with the flow of water and it's supposed to do that. Mr. Murphy, you have about five minutes left. Okay. Appreciate that. On the variance, Mr. Emmons explained the variance very well. We're just doing it where we have a road that acts as the boundary. If it were a public road, we wouldn't need a variance, but it's a private road, so we have to ask you for a variance on that. I want to emphasize that we are not asking for any variance on any landscaping around our perimeter where somebody else owns the property. We're not asking for any variance along there. so I will conclude and sum up here I want to talk about I know there's been concern about animal habitat in here and we got 11 acres which we're keeping not building a pond with the pond and that will continue to be there for the geese and the birds that use it we're not developing Masterson Station Park, I'll say one more time, just so it's on the record. And we have I did mention, I put that up to remind me to mention that, that there were a number of comments on people who seemed to be convinced that the city was allowing a private developer to develop Masterson Station Park. You can see the comments over here, people there, and it seemed like about a, somewhere between 25 and 39 percent of the people who made comments thought that we were developing that green space in Masters of Station Park. And I would note that about 38 percent of the people who signed the petition are not from Fayette County. It was an internet petition, and it's a testimony to the power of the internet, how many people you can get to sign petitions on the internet. But I want to make those points. And last thing is the conditional zoning restrictions, which we We proposed a list. The staff added to it. We've agreed to all of those. I know there's been some comment from some of the neighbors, and they can address this, that maybe it would be good to be able to have cocktail lounges on the property. We agreed to not have any at the staff's request. I would emphasize that that would not prevent sale of alcoholic beverages at restaurants. It's just a prohibition on what I call freestanding cocktail lounges, which don't serve food on there, which is prohibiting. We do plan restaurants on this, and we are agreeable to the conditional zoning restrictions. So in conclusions, I'll sum up here real quick in one minute, I guess I have, and that is try to do it in two sentences. One is that the comprehensive plan really calls for a development like this. Nearly every goal and objective of the comprehensive plan that relates to housing calls for well-planned mixed-use housing close to community services and close to jobs. And that's what we have here, something that agrees with the comprehensive plan. And the second part is that it's nice for somebody to get up here and tell you how this will work, but we have a developer who is experienced and has done mixed use, knows that it works, knows there's a demand for this in Fayette County, and knows how to do it right, and has won awards for doing it right, right in this area. So we thank you very much. We're very pleased to present this to you, and we'd be happy to answer any questions for you. And I've got the experts here if you have any questions about drainage or traffic and that sort of thing. Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Any questions for Mr. Murphy or his staff? I see none at this point. We'll move to anybody that would like to speak in favor of this plan. Yes, ma'am. Anybody will have three minutes. Good afternoon. My name is Barbara Stucker, and I'm the president of McConnell's Trace Neighborhood Association. And I was asked to tell you what impact having townhomes has had on our neighborhood. First concern that we had when they were built was it's going to affect my property values. and we had one neighbor who backed up to the first townhomes that were built and she was adamant. She just was against it. It was going to be horrible. She did sell her house and it sold very nicely. The property values in our neighborhood have not gone down. I've been watching, have a direct interest in what the values are in the neighborhood and although I haven't statistically gone through and checked, they do seem to be not only having held steady over the years, they have risen. And property is selling very well and very quickly in McConnell's trace. The second thing that we heard was, well, the trail goes along behind where the townhomes will be, and maybe we'll have crime on the trail. Well, that wasn't an issue either because the townhomes were turned at an angle so that there is a direct sight line from the trail to the street in front of the townhomes. I've never heard of a single incident of any problem at night, day, or anything on any of the trails. And the third thing that we heard was, well, they're renters. They won't take care of the place. It won't look good. They won't behave well. Well, from my understanding, the people who rent from Mr. Anderson have a fairly specific set of rules of things they cannot do and remain in the housing. And I have to say that we have had no incidents whatsoever of any problems with the townhomes. I think the biggest thing that ever happened was when they first moved in, there was a dumpster that wasn't quite big enough, and somebody said, it's overflowing, and we got that fixed like in a week. You can – that's the only problem I've heard out of the whole thing, and that's been four or five years. So I can honestly say they've been no problems to us. I would be thrilled if our homeowners and our residents who don't rent from Mr. Anderson were as well-behaved as the people in the townhomes. They're well-maintained, they look good, and they don't present a single problem that I've found so far. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Others that would like to speak in favor of this plan? If not, we'll move to those in opposition. Let me see a show of hands real quick as to those that would like to speak. Okay, is there any sort of spokesperson? Okay, you can go first, and we'll let everybody have three minutes after you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. My name is Michael Barnett, and before I start speaking, I have at least one letter from a concerned resident, Ms. Debbie Smith, on Leesway Road or Leesway Drive that needs to be tendered for the official record. Her neighbor, Nori. Put it right there, and we'll pass it around. Her neighbor did deliver that to us today because Debbie's out of town. I think we've seen a lot of hands today, and we've heard a lot from the developer and from Mr. Murphy about this proposed development. But, you know, this is my first attempt at diving into civic engagement this deeply, so please bear with me. I talk fast, but I'll try to be brief. First, we'd like to thank Ms. Tracy Wade, Mr. Bill Selle, and Mr. Tom Martin on the planning staff for their advice in fighting this. And I'd ask that everyone in the audience, if you're here with us in opposition, please stand up real quick. Thank you, guys. I'm here on behalf of, as you know, over 530 signatories to a petition who are opposed to this rezoning request, primarily residents of the Masterson Station, McConnell's Trace, Leesway, and Bracktown neighborhoods, all of which would be impacted by this proposed development. We have disparate reasons for opposing this development, and we would note in general that the petitioner's application in support of this request doesn't say that the requested R3 and B3 zones are more appropriate than the existing agricultural, urban, and single-family residential zones that already exist on this property. We will show how this proposed development does not align with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. Briefly, and you've already seen pictures of the property, but this isn't a small property like the parking lot we talked about earlier today. It's an expansive 50-acre property. It's very beautiful, rolling bluegrass hills. Here's the view from the north looking south across the pond towards Leestown Drive. The Leestown Road, you can just see McConnell's trace there in the background. And on the prior slide, Masterson Station, as it looks to the north behind the development. Primarily, we're concerned that this development would not comport with the character of the area as it exists now. The surrounding neighborhoods are all composed of two-story, single-family detached houses. The comprehensive plan tells us that infill in the urban service area should include celebrating the character and context of the surrounding neighborhood, respecting the scale and massing of surrounding buildings, and showing porch and roof lines in scale with the neighborhood. There are no single-family homes in the Townley residence or the Townley Park or Townley Center area that Mr. Murphy pitches is similar to this development. Townley is surrounded by Metathorpe Shopping Center to the east, open space and sewage to the south, and across Leastown Road, the Metathorpe subdivision. Respectfully, it's not identical to this planned development, which would be surrounded by hundreds of single-family detached residential houses. In addition, the three-story apartment buildings that are proposed in the interior of the development would overshadow the area and obstruct sight lines to the surrounding green space. Proposed development, like I said, it's not small. Everybody knows it's 570 apartments and townhouses with limited commercial space. The property adjoins Masterson Station, which is already the single largest neighborhood in the entire state of Kentucky. Taken alone, this would represent a 25% increase in the number of residential units in the area, all crammed into 13 acres of space. As Mr. Murphy told you, it represents 13.67 units per acre. Petitioners have told us that they're concerned about overcrowding in the area, not just the extra residents this brings into the neighborhood, but the extra traffic and the crowding close together of the homes. As well, we've heard specifically from people who are concerned about safety, including fire. These houses, these townhomes and apartments are so close together, that a fire will spread very quickly between them, and the closest fire station until the new one gets built is over two miles away. Stormwater, as you've heard from the staff, is one of the primary concerns here. It sits on what's called the Bracktown Branch, which is a tributary to Town Branch Creek, and the designated FEMA floodplain runs through the entire Masterson Station neighborhood with outflow towards Masterson Station Park. Flooding is a real concern for residents, And I believe some other residents will stand up after me and address their specific concerns as they back up on the pond. Mr. Jeff Swain, a retired engineer, addressed this commission in 1997 and will do so again today, concerning the developer's inability to provide adequate stormwater controls. Here are a couple of pictures taken from residents' backyards, which show how the water rises up over the banks, as Mr. Murphy told you, swallowing the trees, and one resident, Pat, who lives at 156 Masterson Station Drive, showed me a picture of where it rises within two feet of the electric junction box in her backyard, creating an electrocution hazard. We're worried of where this water will go when we degrade and develop this 50 acres. You're going to create additional runoff, given the 59% impervious area that is suggested by the current development plans. As this commission well knows, Lexington entered into a consent decree in 2006 with the Environmental Protection Agency, agreeing to pay a $425,000 fine for discharging raw sewage into urban stormwater runoff. Additionally, Lexington's agreed to pay $290 million to rehabilitate its failing stormwater infrastructure. With respect to Mr. Murphy and Mr. Anderson, we don't trust without further water studies before this rezoning application is approved, that this stormwater will be adequately controlled and prevented from damaging our property and running off into our yards. This comports with the goals, well, denying the zoning application, comports with the goals of the 2013 Comprehensive Plan, specifically Theme A, Goal 3C, which states that we should minimize disruptions of natural features like the Bracktown Branch, and theme B, goal 1, which offers that we should continue to successfully implement that consent decree until its resolution. In addition, Mr. Murphy spoke to you about animal habitat. The Kentucky Audubon Society's great annual backyard bird count tallied hundreds of species of animals in this area, including two species of rare songbird, great blue herons, black swans, white swans, and, as Mr. Murphy noted, the hundreds of migratory Canada geese who make the pond their home every winter. Petitioners have told us they are specifically concerned about the impact that this will have on the wildlife who make this area their home. The comprehensive plan at pages 55 and 58 denotes that we should work to protect and preserve the habitat of animals within the 110 miles of streams and tributaries inside the urban service area. Traffic. Traffic was the number one concern on our petition. Of those who chose to write their comments out rather than just sign, we received 38 comments that people were opposed to the additional traffic this would generate in front of and through the neighborhoods. As Mr. Murphy told you, Integrated Engineering's traffic study suggested putting a new traffic signal at the intersection of Chestnut Ridge Drive and Leestown, where this development would exit onto Leestown Road. That signal would further slow commuters who have an already pained commute. And as Mr. Murphy told you, there is a 50% predicted delay per vehicle every morning rush hour exiting Masterson Station to the south. This picture was taken this morning. these cars and trucks typically have to wait two to three light cycles at 7.30 in the morning to get out to Lee's Town Road adding an additional traffic signal at Chestnut Ridge Drive and adding the impactful extra trips taken by the residents of this new development would further slow commute times further integrated engineering traffic impact study did not examine through trips through Masterson Station. Mr. Salley's staff presentation just now on the traffic study told us that they assumed that all new trips generated by this proposed development would exit to Lee's Town Road. Unfortunately, that's not the case. As you've heard, this new development would extend Lucille Drive northwards of the neighborhood as well as Summerfield Drive through the development to carry traffic onto Masterson Station, which exits northward towards Spur Road. For example, residents of this new development, traveling to and from Georgetown and the Toyota plant, would tear through Masterson Station. And residents have told us that they believe those new renters would not respect our 25-mile-an-hour speed limit, would not respect stop signs, and respectfully would endanger children, pedestrians, and bicyclists in our neighborhood. to improve traffic operations would meet Theme D, Goal 1C of the Comprehensive Plan, and we ask that this zoning application not be approved without additional traffic studies which examine the through traffic generated through the nearby neighborhoods. Preservation of green space. This is as good a time as any to talk about what Mr. Murphy said, that unfortunately we did have a number of petitioners sign the petition in favor of the preservation of Masterson Station Park. And that is a concern that you get when you make an open petition on the Internet. We ask people to share it amongst their friends and family. And with all due respect to Mr. Murphy, I think not to impugn him, but if you count up the comments yourselves, it was not 38% or 40%. It was more like 12%, about 29 out of 250 comments that were left on the petition addressed Masterson Station Park. In addition, I personally spoke with a concerned resident, Karen Cipelli, who laid out for me why even those who were worried about the impact of Masterson Station Park should sign on to this petition. Those who used the equestrian facilities would see increased traffic through Masterson Station Park. Although Ms. Wade told you in the staff presentation they anticipated no direct impact on the park, This will certainly indirectly impact the park, as it brings in 600 new residencies worth of people to attend the park, walk on the walking trails, ride their bikes through, and horses ride on those trails at times just adjacent to Masterson Station. Some have told us that carting their horses out to the Masterson Station equestrian facilities, they wouldn't want to see the degradation of one of these last open areas of bluegrass hills that make Lexington the horse capital of the world. Preservation of this green space aligns with the comprehensive plan. Page 40 tells us it's integral to the urban landscape and that we ought to work to promote, maintain, and expand the urban forest. While the proposed development, Mr. Murphy didn't touch on the tree cover here, but it would reduce the trees in the area by 40%, replacing 317 existing mature trees with 165 new saplings. Forever endangering the growth of the urban forest, as well as destroying habitat for the aforementioned birds. And all 23 petitioners wrote us concerned about the loss of this green space. Property values, as Mr. Murphy addressed, he attempted to favorably compare this development to the existing Anderson community's townly development. However, they're not the same at all. This development would directly abut to hundreds of houses inside Masterson Station and be directly across the street from McConnell Trace, whereas Townley is not bordered by any residencies. The Meadowthorpe houses are the closest ones and are situated across Leastown Road. The comprehensive plan commands that we do our best in approving or denying a zoning request to protect the property values of existing residents, along with the neighborhood's unique characteristics. Many of my friends and neighbors have told us that, as Mr. Murphy said, they bought their properties adjacent to the Great House property because they anticipated it would remain as it was zoned in 1997, single-family residential for detached housing. Respectfully, Mr. Murphy cited two studies from MIT and Harvard that only addressed national numbers. We petitioners would ask that before any zoning application be granted, we see a study of local impact on property values in Masterson Station, Leesway, McConnell Trace, Bracktown, and every other local nearby impacted neighborhood. Finally, with specific application to this development as it stands now, this is not like Townley Center. And Mr. Murphy told you, or we believe from talking to Mr. Anderson at the Masterson Station HOA meeting, that Townley Center is 50% commercial, and that this development was originally proposed only to be 20% commercial. Rather, Mr. Murphy told us by square footage that only, I think, it is less than 50,000 square feet of this development would be committed to commercial space. That represents less than 10% by square footage of the entire development. There is an undeniable need for customer-facing businesses in this area, certain types, gyms, restaurants, bars, but this development as proposed wouldn't bring them to us. In fact, Condition 15 on the Technical Subdivision Committee's recommendation recommended approval only subject to there being no restaurants in commercial buildings 1 and 2 without further revision. In conclusion, I'm standing here to talk as quickly and briefly as I can on behalf of over 500 petitioners. And as Mr. Murphy mentioned, yes, a lot of those petitioners are from out of town. Again, that's what you get when you ask friends and family to sign. But I don't think that reflects poorly on our grievance. Rather, those who are from out of town, a lot of them wrote in the comments of the petition, you can read it yourselves, that they are from Lexington, they come back to Lexington often, they use the equestrian facilities at the park, and they are aggrieved to see this green space destroyed. In addition, our plight has found national reach among those who live in states like Ohio, Tennessee, and Massachusetts. And while I'm standing on behalf of so many people, I know that I can't adequately address in the time that I'm allotted the individual concerns that each and every petition signer has about this rezoning proposal. But on the whole, I would just say we do not believe it aligns with the 2013 comprehensive plan as currently proposed. It does not adequately address the extant needs of the friends and neighbors who will be abutting the property. And it is inappropriate for the existing character of the surrounding neighborhoods, which are all characterized by one- and two-story, single-family, detached residences. We ask that you vote no, or that you withhold approving any zoning request until adequate studies can be conducted into the impact on property value, water, and wildlife. Thank you very much for your time. If there are any questions. Thank you, Mr. Barnett. Yes. Thank you, sir. Any questions for Mr. Barnett? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Others that would like to speak, please come forward. We would ask that you not be repetitive. we do want to hear from you hear what you have to say but we don't have to hear ten times that there's a traffic issue so please come forward I think everyone else will have like three minutes Hello my name is Noreen Ward I live at 160 Leesway Drive I am too concerned about the development I don't think I could get another sardine in that piece of property I think they need to look at it and downsizing some of what they've done. If you're looking at it now, it's approximately 1,200 more cars going to be in that space. And we're already at capacity on Leastown Road again. Being at 160 Leastway Drive, I'm very close to Leastown Road, and it literally feels and sounds like I live on I-75. My biggest concern is, may I show you where I live on Lee's Way? On your agenda on page 8 under D, it says the proposed neighborhood node is bordered by the higher density residential with townhouses proposed nearest the exiting single-family residential along Leesway Drive and Masterson Station Drive. Directly behind me is going to be a gas station. I particularly don't want to live behind a gas station due to the fact of its noise, the lights, the continuous slamming doors, honking horns, idling motors, tractor trailers coming in there to deliver gas, and also not to mention the daily robberies the gas stations seem to have right now. My husband said this morning they're not robbing the gas stations. They're just going making their daily withdrawals. So that was kind of funny, I thought. so even though I do have to commend the Anderson communities, it does look nice in town center. It really does. But I think truly they need to downsize a whole lot of what they're trying to do in this one little particular piece of heaven as I've lived out there almost 40 years. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Others, please come forward. Don't be shy. I'm Michael Masterson, and I live at 401 Middle Valley Road in Masterson Station. I'm not related. But when I first heard about this, it was just out of the blue. I mean, there was not a whole lot of notice for this. And, you know, this meeting came up very, very quickly. And I guess my main concern was that the timing is just uncanny that we've endured a couple of years of construction for Leastown Road to get widened to accommodate the largest subdivision in the state. And now that it's widened, we want to cram 500-plus more units in there, more people, another 1,000-plus cars onto the road that we just completed. It hasn't even been a year yet. So I don't think the traffic impact is quite realized with what this is proposing for us. Not to mention that this is a floodplain. We're putting all this concrete down. The runoff is just going to be, you know, I don't really think that that pond is going to be able to hold the water that's going to go around all the concrete that's going to be poured. The gentlemen obviously knew there were problems with their original proposal. They've gone on and extended Lucille. They didn't do that at first. They realize that there are traffic problems, and that's why they're trying to sugarcoat this bitter pill. This is just, I don't know. I see us losing our green space. I see us losing our identity as Lexington. This is a town that is built around green space. and all of a sudden now you want to take this little tiny piece of property and put that many people in there. It just doesn't make sense to me. So I would appreciate the council to vote no for this proposal, and I just thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Yes. So I guess I don't get his remaining 28 seconds. No, sir. So as I say, I'll give it to myself as much time as I consume then. My name is Jeff Swain. You heard Mr. Arnett allude to me in his presentation. I'm a retired lieutenant colonel from the United States Army, Army engineer, and I've spoken to this commission once before, and I don't recall how many of you were still here. I think Mr. Martin was here at the time, but I don't know that you had the beard. at that time, but maybe you have. Okay. Mr. Murphy, nice to see you again. In that previous addressing to this commission regarding this property, if those of you here may recall, I brought in an analysis, a detailed analysis of water retention. Because as an Army engineer, and by the way, I aced the drainage portion of the Army engineer course, I brought in that analysis, and at the time, the developers who were wanting to develop the property at that time had he not even considered development. In fact, if you go back and look at the preliminary development plan that the commission approved, there's a line item in there that says no further development may be approved until a water retention plan has been reviewed by Mr. Jeff Swain from 2904 Masterson Court. So I did not prepare a new analysis of this current proposal because there's been actually nothing that I can see in the plan that is any different from water retention from the previous plan, except that we're adding more impervious area in this development than we did before with the commercial areas. So as you saw some pictures there, the stream that we have, that culvert there at Mastler Station Drive and some of the downstream structures weren't really designed large enough to accommodate a 100-year flood. Right after, in the late 90s, early 2000s, we had a 1,000-year rain, I think they said, and actually some of the houses along that green space, the water actually got up into the houses, all right, because the downstream infrastructure, there's some culverts down there, some bridges on the running track, I mean the walkway, they were not designed to handle that water. They actually impeded the water going away. So, even with this property developed now, or not developed now, so it's grass, and that's the, in drainage calculations, that's the slowest terrain in which water travels. Now, right now, those downstream structures can't handle the water. Now, we're going to put all this 59% impervious in there, and we're going to dump all that water in there. So unless there is an improvement to the water retention and there's some additional structures in here to slow that water down before it hits this pond, we're going to have extreme flooding. Thank you, Commission, for your time. Thank you, Mr. Swain. Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Pat Lake. My husband and myself, we chose Lexington. We moved here about a year and a half ago, and we live on Summerfield Drive. I have a picture of that pond that they talk about. When it comes down, it comes down behind our yard. And that stream, I couldn't take the picture when it was flooding, but you can see all the debris that's left. I don't know how you use these things. All the debris, that brown stuff that's left on our lawn, because that's how close the water came. And it even went up to the pad on the electrical box over in the right-hand corner there. Cool. Yeah, all that ground is all the debris that was left in the flood. So that is a real concern of ours, and that happened last April, about a couple months after we were here. The other concern I have is the fact of Masterson Station having more traffic, because we live on Summerfield Drive. One way, I cannot even get out, because there's too many cars lined up at the light. So then I go out the other way, and there's kind of a curve there. And as soon as cars see that there's a traffic light down there and there's cars going, so it's like taking your life into your hands trying to get out there certain times of the day because they are going more than the 25 miles an hour so they can get the light and get out on Lee's town. So those are my two major concerns besides the density that's already been addressed. And thank you. Thank you. Others? Yes, please come forward. Hi, my name is Bob Pettenpole. I've lived in Masterson for about 15 years. I just want to, again, stress that this is the first view that you see of Lexington, so this big green space, and it's been a nice view to see as the first thing you see in the urban area. A couple of technical things is the traffic study. Not the traffic study, but I'm worried about the traffic on Masterson Station Road that goes straight out. the density of the new places and often I take my my son out we try to crop we have to cross that street there and I'm worried about a lot more traffic on Masterson Station Road lastly Townley is about two and a half miles away so it's a very nice place but it's very close by so I'm concerned if the young professionals are targeting are interested in living this far outside of the new circle when Townley Square is inside the circle much closer to downtown. Thank you. Thank you. Others that would like to speak? Yes? No? Yes? Come forward. My name is Michael Lay. I live at 144 Greenway Lane that abuts to the what they're referring to as the stormwater retention area. And I just want to point out Number one, we purchased our home only two years ago, and part of the attraction was the green space. We understood that it will get developed at some point. But with the residential one zoning, our understanding was it's going to be houses very similar to our own. And seeing this is a little bit of a bitter pill to swallow, knowing that there's going to be a much denser development. We're going to lose a lot of privacy in the backyard, which is admittedly a selfish concern. But I think a lot of residents around the Masterson Station area would agree that this doesn't really fit the character of any of the surrounding areas. To compare it to Townley doesn't really seem like a fair comparison because there you've got Leastown Road itself separating from any residential areas. And my final concern, pointed out to me by my wife, was recognizing while we are lacking a lot of services, in particular extra grocery store, retail, what have you, in this area, We do already have an area that has been zoned and I believe is getting ready for construction right here at the corner of Citation and Leastown, which is right here in this location, which already has very good access to both Leastown and to Citation Road. Here we're adding a traffic light that doesn't exist in between an area that we already know has a lot of heavy traffic. and my concern, not to reiterate the traffic, but I don't see how that's compatible with what we have today. Thank you all for your time. Mr. Lake, where do you live? 144 Greenway Lane, which is right here. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Others that like to speak? My name is Margaret Gordon, and I live at 408 Meadow Valley Road. I only have a comment. I don't understand why young people would want to come and move into this Denson development when there's really nothing there. There's very few restaurants. There's nothing to do. You will just be surrounded by a big subdivision. and I don't think, this is based on what I know because I've lived there since 1999, I don't think they're going to fill and I just think it's going to be a big waste of beautiful green space. Thank you. Thank you. Others? My name is John Stewart. I live at 2816 Greenway Court. my basic concern is like somebody pointed out on staff is once you get to robinson coming in from the right it's all houses out there and my question is why why do we want to change the complete nature of this area with with uh with with businesses i mean there's no doubt in my mind when i bought my property i knew the day would come when great house would sell out and that this piece of property would develop. I'd seen some development plans before, and they all showed basically what I kind of expected already, single family residences, you know, about the same density. But now I see they want to come in with businesses, which honestly I would find these convenient at times, but I find it just as convenient to go into town and do the same thing there. So I guess if I had to put my thumb on one thing I'm really opposed to, it's probably the idea of business coming in there. Because really, they're going to produce light pollution, pollution, noise pollution, and garbage. Let's be realistic. So I guess that's my biggest problem. The one thing I like about the whole program, the whole plan, is that they're trying to continue to develop the greenways. If the gentleman would push the button on my... What you're seeing now, or what you should be seeing, is basically... I've got a real concern with what's going to happen with the water in this area. This is basically right off my property line. and they want to put a trail in there, but I just don't see where they're going to be able to put it such that it's not going to be inundated with water all the time. I don't really see how that's going to happen. I think what they're really doing is setting up a dangerous situation here. Again, I'm not opposed to the Greenway trail system. I just think there needs to be some more thought into exactly where this trail is going to go rather than a couple meandering lines on a plan. Anyway, that's my two cents worth. Thanks for your time. Thank you, sir. Others? Yeah, please come forward. My name is Gregory Stapleton. I live at 152 Leesway Drive. I've lived there since 1989, and I'm still one of the junior residents of that neighborhood. The neighborhood's been there since the 1950s, and there's a lot of people who have lived there. since that neighborhood was first established, and their families come back and live there when homes open up. My biggest thing is the commercial that they're attempting to build right at our back doors. They're trying to put commercial in that convenience station, literally, where I'll be able to stand in my backyard and see the cars and hear the radios and the intercom, you know, pump three, you're ready for fill-up. I just don't think it's appropriate. An existing neighborhood that's been around since 1950 that has had an area behind it that was, when I first moved there, there were cows out there. Then the nursery, and what I always thought it was going to be coming, developed someday, not to this scale and certainly not commercial backing right up to our neighborhood. As I said, Citation Village, just down the road, a quarter of a mile away, Citation Village has been undeveloped for about five years now. There isn't this great need out there for a lot of commercial because if there was, that would have been developed before now. So I think this is one of the things that we trust you guys to do is protect the existing neighborhoods, and I hope that you'll consider that. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Kay Tungate. I live at 2828 Greenway Court, and I have a terrible fear of public speaking, so I should tell you how passionate I am about this. My husband and I were the first people to move in on Greenway Court, the Greenway Lane area. We moved in August 31, 1997. And Jack and Belinda were the second people to move in. My concern, part of my concern is the pond flooding all the time. We love it. It's the perfect view. When we bought our house and signed our contract, our realtor told us that land over there would never be developed because of zoning. So here we are. the houses that are on Greenway, the way that they're built, all of the bedrooms are on the back side of the house. So my windows are always, my blinds are always open. What concerns me is that now all of those lights from 1,000 cars that are going to be over there now, there's 1,000 parking spaces on that plan, if I'm incorrect. So all of those lights are going to be shining in my bedroom window constantly. My son is nine years old, and we fought the Greenway Trail before. I love the Greenway Trail, but I just don't want it right on the other side of my fence. My son is nine. He plays in the backyard all the time. I won't be able to let him play alone in the backyard anymore because of the fear of strangers. Bill and Virginia Great House are good friends of mine. So for me to be here speaking out against them selling their property, I don't care about them selling their property. I just don't want this development on it. It's not ideal. So they should tell you a lot if I'm here to speak out against the sale of the property. But Virginia loves my son. And my other concern is with all of the runoff, and it causes the pond to flood even more. I have pictures as well that I can show you where the water comes up past my fence by about four feet past my fence. So if it gets worse, I'm concerned about the need to have flood insurance. so I'm wondering who's going to pick up that flood insurance for all of us who line back up to the pond. Did you give them that picture? I tried. It didn't show up very well. If you guys want the picture of the backyard flooding, I have that. Do you want me to? I think we can take your word for it. Okay. Okay, so thank you for your time. Okay. Vote no. Thank you. Others? Pass it over. Do you want it? Sure. This was December 2014. Thank you. Thank you. Others? Others that would like to speak? There you go. Thank you very much. You can also retrieve your phone if you'd like to. Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak? Otherwise, we'll move to the rebuttal stage and start with Mr. Murphy. thank you very much well we certainly appreciate all the comments from the residents in the area and and we understand them because this property has been vacant for a long not vacant but an open property used as a garden center has been extremely well maintained by bill and virginia great house who own it and i've known them for a long time too they're great people they're fantastic neighbors some of the back part was sold off 25 years ago or so and has has been developed back here and it's it's time for them to move on and do something else and they made the choice to sell it and this has always been property that is is developable property and a of the comments and i understand this too is is about the concept of developing it at all should it just stay a green space and i can understand people wanted to stay green space but it's in the urban service area it's been designated for development part of it was zoned r1e the patio patio home zone 20 years ago back when patio homes were in vogue they're no no longer and vote. And we can understand that. But a lot of the issues, if we were to develop this exactly like the surrounding area with single family detached, we're still talking about impervious services on each property of over 50%. We're still talking about storm water. We're still talking about traffic. We're still talking about that the issues are up here. We think we've come up with a better development which is in keeping with the comprehensive plan as it is today, adopted in 2013 and as we're looking at today. As I mentioned to you, this has always been, the last 20 years, designated in a category on the comp plan that would allow multifamily residential on it, apartments, townhouses, duplexes, and single-family on this property. We want to deal with a few of the issues. Of course, single-family houses are allowed to be three stories. We heard about the height. Most of our height is in the low area here, and it's in interior. We're two stories around the perimeter. The fire department has seen this through their subcommittee approval, and I understand has approved this layout that we have. The impervious service area, again, single-family residential often has over 50% impervious area. Consent decree, we're in compliance with the consent decree. We're going to have to comply with all those new requirements that we have since the consent decree. And as you all know, the stormwater requirements are much, much more stringent today than they were 20 years ago. we're going to have to comply with all the storm sewer manuals the sewer manuals we're going to have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city and if we have to do a FEMA clomer there, which I think we do we're going to have to demonstrate to them as well with engineering studies to show that we will not be putting water outside the floodplain area we are required to show that and as you all know that is done in the improvement plan stage once after a zone change is approved. But we will have to require those and comply with those, and we understand that. That's why we have three people from integrated engineering here with us today, and that's just three of the people who worked on this. There are at least six or eight people in their office who are working on it and will continue to work on it to make sure we meet all the stormwater requirements of this property. But I will point out this is a floodplain. We're not going to be allowed to adjust that floodplain without many, many approvals. And we're not going to be allowed to put water in people's houses, in people's yards, if there's no floodplain on those yards at this point. Traffic, yes, single family or anything coming in here will generate traffic. That is planned for. The Leastown Road was widened to accommodate not only existing traffic, but future traffic. I was talking to our traffic engineers. We anticipate that we will be getting more traffic from Masters and Station subdivision through us than we'll be giving to them. And yes, there will be a light here, but as you saw in the pictures, Leastown Road was constructed at this intersection to have a light. no matter what goes in here is going to have a traffic signal at this point, whether it's single-family, detached, or multifamily. The park, we will have, we're assuming people here will be able to walk into Masters and Station Park and enjoy that just like anybody else does. Our tree cover, our tree figures on this plan. Mr. Murphy, I need you to wrap up. Okay. I'll wrap just one minute. Okay. We'll actually, and when we don't delineate the street trees or the parking area trees, we will have 442 new trees. They did a rough calculation based on one tree every 40 feet along streets and along primers. So we'll have more trees after this than we do now. We heard discussion about some people want less commercial, some people want more. We think we've got the right amount here. But I'll head it back to one statement, I think, out of the comprehensive plan that sums this up. Out of Chapter 1, the very goal, Theme E, maintaining a balance between planning for urban uses and safeguarding rural land, Objective B, encourage compact, contiguous, and or mixed-use sustainable development within the urban service area, as guided by market demand to accommodate future growth needs. And I had about 20 pages of the comprehensive plan up there, and that pretty well sums up what the goal of the comp plan is, to allow mixed use to accommodate our future growth needs. Mr. Anderson engaged Steve Austin, who is very sensitive to these issues here in Lexington. We think we have an outstanding plan to treat this property right here, and we certainly hope you'll vote in favor of it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Barnard, would you like to provide any sort of rebuttal? Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman, only very briefly. Mr. Murphy's spoken a lot today, and I have, and many, many other residents have as well, so I won't rehash all of our concerns. I'd just ask, in a brief rebuttal to the tree point, we got our numbers from the plans on file. We're kind of on the back foot here as non-zoning professionals, that we're working only with stuff that's in the staff file. And those plans right there indicate that there will be a reduction in the amount of urban forest on this site. And along those same lines, I ask in support of our petition and our points that you review with your own eyes, the petitioner's comments and the number of signatures and rebuttal to Mr. Murphy's declarations about the credibility thereof. And again, we thank you all for your time and for listening to our concerns as friends and neighbors, and we ask you to vote no on this petition. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, we aye. Just very briefly, yes, sir. Very briefly, just 8.30 seconds. Yes, in due respect to Mr. Murphy, he made a comment that there was no difference between the impervious area from the R1 that was approved 20 years ago and the R3. But I would remind the Commission and Mr. Murphy that the development plan for that R1 was never approved because the water retention was never addressed. Thank you, sir. Staff, rebuttal? Thank you. Yes, ma'am. I just want to let the Planning Commission know that the staff appreciates Mr. Barnett's accolades, but I want to be clear that the staff provides information to any concerned citizens about any application that the Planning Commission reviews because it is public information. But in sharing that information with citizens, it shouldn't be construed that we are somehow supporting them in opposition to a request. In everything that we do, we review all the applications that come to the Planning Commission in an impartial and objective way and provide a staff recommendation. So I just wanted to kind of clarify that. The technical committee, Mr. Barnett also mentioned that the technical committee suggested that there be no restaurants at all on the site, and that's not quite true. The requirement that the staff proposed, or I'm sorry, the condition that the staff proposed was that either restaurants not be allowed or that parking be provided to accommodate the restaurants they're indicating there. So really our preference is that the appropriate parking requirement be met on the site, not that there be some sort of prohibition on restaurants. And then lastly, this goes to what I gave Ms. Rackers to put up. The comprehensive plan, I believe, was misquoted by Mr. Barnett, and I want to be clear about that. The comprehensive plan does not promote protection of property values per se. What it does is promote good planning principles for our community. What the comprehensive plan does say is really a reflection of neighborhood concerns. So it's kind of blurry there, but it says neighborhood concerns about infill, development, and redevelopment take many forms, but are generally associated with the protection of the neighborhood's unique characteristics, protection of property rights, protection of community character. Those are the things that the Planning Commission hears on a monthly basis, the concerns of neighborhoods. So the comprehensive plan is reflecting in this paragraph really what neighbors are concerned about. Of course, you all know what those are. But we are not in the business and planning of, per se, protecting property values. We are in the business of good planning. So I believe that's it from the staff. Thank you. Commission members, any questions for anyone? Yes. Tracy, have a second. When the staff reviewed this plan, the gas station convenience store, or you want to call it, being backed up to single-family houses, did that give you a concern? I believe Tom can probably more appropriately answer that. Did you hear Mr. Penn's question? If you're referring to the relationship of the commercial property to the residential, we do review this, and we review it in terms of the setback from the property, the landscaping, and the buffer. And if we think it's necessary, we will take it further and recommend additional buffering. We have in the past recommended lights be shielded and directed away from neighborhoods along the rear of buildings, for instance, and certainly could revisit that on a final development plan to make sure that there is appropriate shielding of lights. And again, with the buffer, additional buffering if needed. Oh, but certainly we always review that relationship. Well, I knew you did. My concern is that could you flip those two and put it in the center and not have the conflict with the neighborhoods? And I know this is a preliminary development plan, but one of the biggest concerns that I've heard that I drive that bothers me about this is that, you know, I think the commercial part needs to be decided what is the best way to do this in regard to the surrounding neighborhoods, and I don't see where it would impact the proposal, is what I should say. And again, you can see they've mitigated through here with that, so it would be this boundary, and that's certainly something we could revisit at the final level. Well, Mr. Anderson could. I just think that that's an issue that I don't think has to be an issue. I think that's a fixable issue on a piece of paper. It might not be once it gets put there. Yes, sir. And again, I would add, we have on numerous occasions addressed it through landscaping, fencing, lighting to help mitigate that. The development on the creek of Harrodsburg Road, which has residential immediately adjacent. One of the things that was done there specifically was to require shielding of the lights on the rear of the building, for instance, just as an example. So we certainly can address that relationship. From a country boy that lives in the country, I still have a hard time believing that everybody has to have a gas station within walking distance of their car. It's always bothering me. As you're aware, the gas station may not materialize there. It could be a different use consistent with the B3. Other questions? If not, I'm going to close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion among commission members and or motion. What we do have before us is a zone change request, which starts on page 7. We have a variance, and then we have a ZDP, all three involved here. Ms. Plumlee? Thank you. I express thank you to the neighbors for coming down and expressing their concerns. This proposed development is designated progress, but it's not your division, your vision for land use. It's a projection of a different lifestyle, and it's different from what you've known in the past. But the bottom line is it does change the character of your neighborhood. And again, I thank you for being here. Other comments, discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I want to move for approval of MARV 2016-6 for the reasons noted by staff. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? Let me, before we vote, let me just add, echo what Ms. Plumlee said. We do appreciate everyone coming down here. And as she said, sometimes progress isn't changes with each individual and in the eye of the beholder. This is a tough situation. I know that that has been a green space for a long time. I've lived on the north end for 40 years, so I understand where it's coming from. But with that said, once again, thank everyone, and I'll ask everybody to vote when it comes up on the screen. Mr. Chairman, before the commission votes, can we make sure that the motion does include the conditional zoning recommendation? The conditional zoning recommendation. Yes, the 11 items, yes. As far as the prohibited uses, Mr. Berkeley? Yes, that's right. Thank you for that clarification. Who seconded it? You did? Yes. Okay. We do have a Mr. Penn. For the reasons I just told you, I'm not against this plan per se, because I know Mr. Anderson can improve a plan and will improve a plan. I do have concerns about the station that I mentioned. I'm going to vote no on this plan, fully expecting it to pass. And the reason I'm going to do this is that I know this is a preliminary development plan. And having been on this planning commission long enough to see Townley Center develop out the way it did and seeing the market the way it is, I'm going to put some faith in Mr. Anderson that when his final development plan comes back, that some of your concerns will be addressed. And I'm going to vote no just because I believe that that's going to happen, and I want it on the record. and I know this is going to be developed and I know it's going to be developed in a way that hopefully will not cause you all a lot of heartburn but between now and the time the final development plan comes in here if you have any ideas that you think make this a better plan don't hesitate to talk to Mr. Murphy or Mr. Anderson about it they want to be good neighbors but the main thing I want you to know is that I'll be looking at the final development plan just as hard as I looked at this development plan thank you and everyone will have an opportunity at that time to speak as far as the final development plan is concerned. Unless there's other comments, I'll ask everybody to vote when it comes up on the screen. Motion passes. Next would be for the variance, MARV 2016-6 Anderson Village at Great Acres with the associated zone change. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of the variants for the five reasons noted by staff. Motion's been made and seconded for the approval of variants in my RV 2016-6. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. And then the ZDP. And then the ZDP. You okay, Ms. Richardson? Okay. We got it corrected. Okay. Chair, I'm going to move for approval of ZDP 2016-22 with the 13 revised conditions provided by staff. Motion to be made and seconded for the approval of ZDP 2016-22 with the revised 13 conditions. Please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, everyone, once again, for coming. We do have two other issues to deal with. Moving to page 9, in the middle of the page, Commission Items, Parallel Telecommunication Infrastructure 5, looks like, LLC. It's CT 2016-2. Oh, okay. Okay. If I may, they're going to set up for that. I'm going to ask the commission if, with their approval, we'll go to the initiation of a zoning ordinance text amendment first and then come back to the telecom infrastructure. Take about a minute. Mr. Wahlberg, if you'll be patient and wait. So, Ms. Wade. Thank you, Mr. Owens. The next item is the initiation of a ZODA, a zoning ordinance text amendment, and the topic is environmentally sensitive areas. This is something the Planning Commission has covered several times in work sessions, and also there was an ad hoc work group that formulated the recommendations for environmentally sensitive area changes. The proposed text amendment deals with Articles 7, 23, and 26, and if the planning commission initiates this, we'll move into the next phase, which would be sending mail notification and then staff reports and a public hearing. I wasn't going to go into the details since we've discussed it at length. This has been discussed on several occasions. This is a committee that Mr. Wilson headed up. I would like to thank everyone who did serve on that committee. unless there's questions. Any questions concerning the initiation of this? If not, yes, sir? Is there a reason that item A or skip? Come forward. I'm sorry, we're going to get to that in just one minute, I think. So if there's not any questions, I'll entertain a motion. Yes, ma'am? I move initiation of the environmentally sensitive area, Zota. Thank you. We do have a motion on the table, and it is seconded by Mr. Wilson. If there's no discussion, please vote when it comes up on the screen. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Now we'll move backwards, one, to the CT 2016-2 parallel telecommunication telecom infrastructure. Ms. Rackers. Good afternoon. I will say real quick, I may have to leave before this is over. I'm going to try and stay around. Go ahead. Page 9 of your agenda, CT 2016-2, is a request for a new tower, a new cell tower. at 7230 Turner Station Road, which is in southeastern Fayette County. The request is made by Parallel Telcom Infrastructure by LLC. Can you zoom it out a little bit, please? Okay. This is an irregularly shaped property. It's a large property. It actually comes down more like this and wraps around the quarry. We have Interstate 75. We have Old Richmond Road on the other side of the interstate. Elkwick Falls Road here. Turner Station Road is here. And again, this is the property. This is Vulcan Rock Quarry. Flora Cliff is down in this area here. This is Kentucky American's treatment plant. And I think that is about it as far as landmark kind of things. What they're asking for is, for regulatory purposes, is a 199-foot tall tower. It'll be a 195-foot steel monopole, and it'll have a 4-foot lightning arrestor. And as we've noted in all the previous applications that we've had, both in the urban and the rural areas, there's a growing need to provide an upgrade service for the general public and for E911. And that's especially true when there are areas of high traffic, and this one is very, very close to the interstate with a lot of traffic going by every day. Once the area of need was identified, representatives of the cell tower company and their attorneys met with property owners in and around the old Richmond Road neighborhood, the corridor, and that was in an effort to determine a good place to put a tower so that it would be the least obtrusive possible and provide the service that is needed. This property was chosen. It's a 437-acre property. And again, it adjoins the rock quarry. It wraps around it. It's zoned AR and has a small portion of B1 zoning along the road, which is that little portion of red right there. That's B1, and then the rest of the property is zoned AR. The tower is going to be located in the AR portion, approximately here, which is behind the quarry and kind of downhill from it. It's about 3,600 feet from Turner Station Road, about a mile from the interstate, and then, as I said, Old Richmond Road is on the other side of the interstate, and so it is even further away from Old Richmond Road Corridor. It'll be within a 10,000-square-foot lease area. And it's not really obvious from the picture. It's kind of hard to see. But there is extensive vegetation along here. We've got floodplain that comes up along here, and there's floodplain that comes along here. There's extensive vegetation down in this area. And even with that, they are still going to comply with the screening requirements of Article 25. They have said that they intend to do that. The tower will hold up to four carriers and it actually has a fairly small profile for a tower that tall. If you could put that one up, Bill, please. It'll be about six feet across, a little bit less than six feet across at the bottom, and then a little bit less than three feet across at the top. This is the tower. It's 32 inches across the top and then 69 inches across the bottom. The lowest antenna will be at about 150 feet, and then they will go up from there. The current land use recommendation for the property comes from the Rural Land Management Plan, and that is for CARL, which is core agricultural and rural land use, and natural areas. And the natural areas are down along where the creek is and where the trees are. That's remained the same through the 2001 and the 2007 comprehensive plans, and it hasn't changed since then. The 2013 goals and objectives, as you know, are more generalized, but they still support the earlier comprehensive plan goals and objectives, the 2001 and the 2007. And one of the objectives that is in the 2007 plan is to ensure that essential public and private facilities are available and equitable for all Fayette County citizens. There is a goal in the 2013 plan that supports this, and that would be Theme D, Goal 2, which is to provide for accessible community facilities and services to meet the health, safety, and quality of life needs of Lexington, Fayette County's residents and visitors. And then theme E, which is maintaining a balance between planning for urban uses and safeguarding rural land, also applies to this application. When we're talking about the applications in the rural area, the balance that is referred to is actually between providing essential services in all portions of Fayette County and then doing that in the least obtrusive and the most practical manner possible. The 2013 plan states that protecting natural areas and the cultural landscape of Fayette County is desirable, is a goal, but it also notes the need to expand Internet service in Fayette County. This site was chosen because of its ability to do both, to accommodate both of those. The property is the largest one in the general vicinity. It doesn't have any PDR right around it. There are PDR properties in the area, but most are on the other side of the interstate. The comp plan and the zoning ordinance both recommend co-location whenever possible, and this will comply with that, and that will reduce the need for other towers in the area. That will thereby help to preserve the rural character of the area, especially the scenic corridor of Old Richmond Road. And they have done a balloon test that shows that you can't see the tower. If you can see it at all, it's minimal, but I have pictures if you would like to see those, but it does show that you can't see the tower from the road. In Fayette County, the closest tower to this location is over three miles to the north. It's on the south side of 8th and Spoonsboro Road. Then there's another one that's about a mile north of that, and it's on the other side of 8th and Spoonsboro. Ideally, they would like a mile to two distance so that they can provide coverage from tower to tower so that you don't drop the calls and then pick them up farther along the road. the ideal coverage is one to two mile distance and that is so that the calls get handed off from one to the other the purpose of this tower is to cover the service area to provide additional capacity and to enhance the weak return signals that's experienced in the area and there is a coverage map that shows the difference of what it's going to be from what it is now once the once the tower is there. This is what's existing along this corridor right here, and then this is what will be existing once the tower is up, and this is much better coverage than it is existing. Because the tower will help to close the gap in service, it does support the objective of 2007 comprehensive plan is providing and improving essential public and private facilities where they're inadequate. And again, even though it's a 2007 plan objective, it is still relevant, and it's supported by the 2013 plan. The tower will comply with both the comp plan recommendation and the zoning ordinance directive of co-location whenever possible, and it meets all of Article 25 location criteria and design standards. and the uniform application states that it won't alter the character of the surrounding area and as towers go, I think that's probably about as true as you can possibly get. It's a steel monopole and it's got a minimal profile as towers go. It'll be sited in a way and in a spot that it won't be visible from much of the area around there. It won't be visible to the east and to the north and obviously it would be apparent from the south and the west but a lot of the properties down in that area are not regular agricultural properties. According to the balloon test, it won't be visible at all from Old Richmond Road. And again, if you'd like to see the photos, I'd be glad to show those to you. It'll be located in the AR portion of the property, and a tower is permitted in the AR zone, if there aren't any other feasible locations in a different zone. This is surrounded by agricultural zoning, with the exception of that small amount of B1 zoning at the roadway, and it would be much more visually obtrusive, have a much bigger impact if it was located in the B1 portion of the property as it will be in the AR portion. So as far as Article 25 goes, we find that although the property contains FEMA floodplain, the tower site is centrally located between the two FEMA flood hazard areas. It's approximately 1,000 feet from each. The property has generally a downward slope from the road to the creek along its southern boundary, but the slope is not great enough to render that environmentally sensitive, and there are no environmental geological hazard areas on the property. It's not within 1,200 feet of an historic district or landmark. The adjoining streets are not designated state scenic byways. U.S. 25 Old Richmond Road is on the other side of the interstate, and it's more than a mile away. The one-to-one height-to-yard ratio for the proposed tower will be met and greatly exceeded on all sides. The requirement that it be at least 25 feet away from accessory structures is greatly exceeded. The proposed tower won't be located where it would interfere with traffic circulation, access, storm drainage, or other requirements. They will put in the screening that's required, even though there is a lot of vegetation on the property, they are going to go ahead and screen it the way it's supposed to be. The site isn't subject to a development plan. It's a steel monopole, and it has a relatively low profile, and it's permitted in all zones. And the location was found to be the least obtrusive in the area and providing the most service. The property is more than 400 acres in size, which obviously greatly exceeds the minimum lot size of the AR zone. And the proposal to construct a new tower is for the purpose of providing and or augmenting service in the area. The height is to allow co-location, and that is in compliance with both the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. We've recommended approval because it meets the height-to-yard ratio on all sides, greatly exceeds that requirement. No variances are needed or requested for anything with this application. It meets all the requirements of Article 25, and an effort has been made by the applicant to site the tower in the least conspicuous location possible in the Old Richmond Road corridor and providing a level of service that meets the needs of both the applicant and the public. It complies with a comprehensive plan. Theme E is it relates to maintaining a balance between urban and rural uses. And there are three conditions for approval, and those are located on your staff report and on your agenda. If you have any questions about the staff report, I'd be happy to answer them. Mr. Walborn is here representing the cell tower. Do you have any questions for him? Questions for Ms. Rackers? Doesn't seem like it. Okay, thank you. Mr. Wahlberg, anything to add? I know everyone's had a long day, so I'll try to be brief. Thank you for your patience. Absolutely. My pleasure. Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, Jacob Wahlberg, on behalf of Parallel Infrastructure 5, I believe is this incarnation, but Parallel Infrastructure does sell towers throughout the United States. Do have one matter of housekeeping. We are required to post a sign regarding the zone change. We have an affidavit evidencing that. I need to introduce that into the record. I had a law school professor who told me, when you're winning, sit down and shut up, and I have a staff recommendation of approval. But I do want to share one thing about this application that I found very interesting and important to share with you. We actually got involved, McBrayer got involved in this tower last summer. They came to us. As Ms. Rackers showed you, we have a coverage map. I think you've heard me say before, we need two things to build a cell tower, a coverage gap, and a willing landlord. We have a coverage gap here. It's actually a pretty dramatic coverage gap in the area. I'm not as qualified to speak on that, but I did bring the engineer of the project, Jaleel Arbab-Sharani, with me, to the extent you have technical questions. We initially identified a different site. We had entered into a negotiation with another landlord. As Ms. Rackers mentioned, you're about three miles to the Athens-Boonesboro interchange. There are some towers to the south in Madison County. They're actually further away. There's really nowhere for us to go. We can't co-locate anywhere because there's literally nowhere else to go. We looked at the other site. I looked at the other site. I immediately had concerns about the character of the area. This is an old area, not necessarily a historic district, but this is a neighborhood that has a lot of pride. We asked them to go out and do a balloon test. I don't know if you all are familiar with the balloon test, but you basically get a red balloon that's the size of the gentleman brought it in a Ford Focus, and when it blew up, it was about the size of a Ford Focus. Fly it at the height. You drive around and take pictures from wherever you're interested in viewing the tower from to see if you can see it. As it turns out, the first site may have been approvable under the letter of the ordinance, but I don't know that it was really the best under the spirit of the ordinance. And so we actually went back to the applicant and said, would you consider looking anywhere else? In preparing for today's hearing, I looked at the site selection criteria. We identified six viable sites that we potentially could locate on because it wasn't an egregious violation of the zoning ordinance in terms of setback, et cetera. four people had no interest we looked at the first site and didn't think it was great this is the second site we met with the neighborhood association preemptively before they got notice we met with them we showed them both sites and asked them what they would prefer one of the concerns that came out of that meeting was the neighborhood association didn't know what impact it would have what could they see so we actually told them when we were going to do the next balloon test. A balloon test isn't required under the zoning ordinance, but there is a scenic byway in the area and the Boone Creek Historic District is somewhere some distance away. And I needed to make absolutely sure that if I represented to you that you would not be able to see it, that you would not be able to see it. You can't see it. Our balloon test photos have come back completely blank. You cannot see it from Old Richmond Road or from Boone Creek. We notify the Neighborhood Association in advance. Now I'm going to take my own advice and sit down, but I want to point out one more thing, and that is this is an application that requires no variances. It provides for co-location of other carriers. It's a monopole design, which is preferred in the ag area. It's less than 200 feet tall, so it does not require any lighting. We've done literally everything we can to pick the most viable location for this site. We'd ask for your approval of this as submitted and appreciate your time. We'd be happy to answer any questions or if there are specific technical questions, the engineer is here as well. Any questions, Mr. Wahlberg? Yes, Mr. Penn? First of all, I want to compliment you for being preemptive with the neighbors. I appreciate that. The other thing is that will you allow co-location on this pole? Yes. Yes, we will. In the RF report that is part of the uniform application actually, which reminds me, more for my amusement than anything else, but this is the uniform application. This is actually what we're required to submit to you all. In there, I believe it provides for co-location of up to four additional carriers. We also did a full environmental assessment to make sure that we weren't doing anything. I thought this was just impressive that it's pure size, and we're not. This is about 500 pages that end up saying no, but yes, up to four additional carriers, I believe is correct. Well, I'm kind of don't understand what it takes to amuse you, but that certainly would amuse me. I'm a lawyer. I guess I'm used to long documents that say simple points. Other questions? Yes, ma'am. Yes, I think Barb said this was in the vicinity of Vulcan. That's correct. I think it's the third one. You can see it. On this black piece of paper, you can't see it. It does abut the Vulcan property. This is a property that's known as Hidden Haven. It's just under 500 acres. I think it's a 460-acre site. It kind of runs along parallel with the northern boundary of Vulcan and then juts down behind it To the extent we're able to get this lightened up, you might be able to see this is a dark photograph. I can even pass it around. It's removed a little bit from Vulcan. It's not, like, right on the property line, but it is in that general vicinity, yes. My question is this. From watching Vulcan through other zoning hearings, they're on top here, but they also have tentacles, many, underground. So what kind of test geology-wise can you offer that you did to protect your poll? Every application is required under, I think, Article 25 and definitely under state regulations to do a full geotechnical survey. That looks at the makeup of the soils, the ground that's underneath, and what would happen if there was an earthquake. They actually go out on the site and do site work to verify these things. verify these things. So there have been geologists on sites that have verified that this is, according to the geotechnical analysis, that they've submitted a viable site and should not be impacted by Vulcan's operations. Thank you. Any other questions? If not, thank you, sir. We have a few people in the audience. Anyone wish to speak on this? Yes, sir. Your name and address, sir? Mike Quigley, 6050 Cedar Creek Lane. If you would pull the map up, please. I appreciate, Chairman and Commission, the opportunity to speak. While I appreciate public safety and I want to address that this will, while they made the effort to be inconspicuous, we are directly behind this and we'll see it from base to top. So let's see, we live on Cedar Creek Lane. The tower site is going to be right in this area. We live, I can't see the road names. It was up on one of the maps before, but essentially we live right here. We operate for Pete's Lake Farm. We're going for organic certification this spring. We are concerned that this is going to affect our business and our ability to get certified organic. Not only will we see the entire tower, but most of the residents on Cedar Creek Lane and Evans Mill Lane, which were not part of the pictures, if you notice, and refer to the balloon test, they were not included. there are pdr farms foley mccord and there's two others pending as well as mary wharton sanctuary so there are some on our side of the road we are requesting another balloon test during a time when people are not working for a living are able to see it such as like a saturday afternoon with two weeks notice we did receive a letter but it was certified mail we were not home and had to go to post office to pick it up and that delayed us getting it in time. We feel like there's enough spots in northern Madison County along the interstate that would be plenty fine for them to put a cell tower up. For record, Hidden Haven is Dennis Anderson's property. So is this about the best location for public safety or is it another opportunity to make money? I'm speaking a little personally there, but I'm very passionate about my feelings on this. We feel like there could be a devaluation of property values along Evans Mill and Cedar Creek. The other thing is, in addition to USDA-certified organic, which has barrier requirements which relate to a lot of things, this could also negatively affect pollinators and beneficial insects, which we rely on for our business. Environmental impact, I'm also a licensed mechanical engineer. My wife is a chemical engineer, so we know a lot of these details. But the environmental impact, Kentucky American Water Company, where we all get our water and drinking water, is right below Elk Lake Falls. Big branch feeds in. If they had a diesel spill, they will need emergency power as backup. They'll likely have a diesel tank. They leak. They fail. They rust. It goes into the ground. There's sinkholes. It's in your drinking water. in general the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association is opposed to these type of things they've been opposed to developing business I think such as the zip lines and things like this that was not really that viewable from the road this is going to be able to be seen I think there was some incorrect information in the staff report it mentioned that you couldn't see it from old richmond road but again if you go along evans miller cedar creek this will be in full view five foot tall landscaping around the barbed wire fence will not do anything except for us to see that they have five foot tall landscaping behind along the fence um the uh we would also ask that the attorneys and their engineers confirm that the sites the confirm that the exact location and measurements of the site meets the distance requirements from Old Richmond Road directly, not from a by-road driven mile. Additionally, we would like them to confirm in writing that the tower will not be seen from nearby Boone Creek National Register Rural Historic District. And let's see if I had another point or two. I think that may be it. But I'm just asking that this not be approved and that a more thorough investigation be done in coordination with Madison County. Vulcan being there, my personal opinion is, why could it, it's already ugly and there's no way that meets your historic or our historic district regulations. Put it in the middle of their site. It's already there. It's an eyesore. Put it in the middle. why I put it on Hidden Haven, which Mr. Anderson has told myself and others, is his getaway. He never wants to develop it. He wants to maintain the beauty. Why would you do this? So I appreciate your time. I'm sorry I ran a little bit long. But, again, we're very passionate about this. We very much strongly oppose it and ask that you would really consider, so I don't have to explain to my 5-year-old son, why I allowed them to put this up in our backyard. We are about 1,000 feet away by line of sight. So thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Quigley. I guess I want to maybe ask legal as far as clarification on one part. He was speaking in regards to organic and bees. I don't know, but we do have in our article statement that it says it should be noted that testimony regarding environmental effects on radio frequency emissions is considered irrelevant and shall not be permitted. Would that fall under that? I don't think so. I don't think he's talking about the radio frequencies. Okay. Very good. I can clarify that his studies have shown that it's... You need to come back to the microphone though. The radio frequency wavelengths are not such that they've been proven to hurt humans from cell towers. However, they are disruptive to pollinators and beneficial insects. And I think that's kind of a hard science because of how the bees and all. Okay. Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am? Well, okay, so my question for that would be in the same vein that we talked about during our last hearing. You know, if you're going to rely on that, you need to have evidence rely on. Right, right. Okay, anyone else that would like to speak? Yes, sir. Yes, Charles Lyle, 642 Central Avenue. I'm here on behalf of Christopher and Sarah Combs. the owners of undeveloped property. On your map, it would be just to the left of the water company facility, which is at the bottom of the page. I just have really a question for legal and engineering. In the conditions for approval, it says, if for any reason the tower height exceeds 200 feet, that it be lighted as required by the FAA. My concern is why would it have to exceed 200 feet, and having something lighted would be far more intrusive than having the simple monopole. So is there any answers to why it would have to be more than 200 feet? FIA regulations say anything over 200 feet has to be lighted. Anything under 200 feet does not have to be. All right, well, they've proposed 199 feet. Is there any situation in which it would end up being more than 200 feet? No. I can clarify that with the... Absolutely. Yeah. All right. All right. Okay. Mr. Wahlberg, do you want to clarify that? Just for the record, no, it will not exceed 200 feet. These things are very specifically engineered. 199 feet is a deliberate choice. It gives us the most we can do without putting a light on it. I actually looked out in my backyard last night. I can see five lighted towers from my house. But no, under no circumstance, absent coming back to you, could we build over 200 feet, nor will we do that. Thank you, sir. Anyone else that would like to speak? No. If not, then I'll close this part of the hearing, or unless commission members have any other questions. If not, okay. I will close this part of the hearing and open it up for any discussion and or a motion. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. We deal with these things all the time, and I want to make sure my understanding is correct. But what is our legal exposure if we turn one of these down? Not necessarily this one, but this is the one we're dealing with right now. Well, it depends on what the basis for turning it down is. Like recently when we turned one down, we based it on information that didn't have solid evidence in the record. And so, as you recall, it was appealed. In that particular case, it was appealed to federal court. It could be appealed either place. And we lost that appeal. So it's not that you can't turn them down. It's just that the statutes and the law is very clear on what you have to rely on, and it has to be very strong evidence that counters what has been produced to you by the applicant in order for you to turn it down if you want it to hold up in court should an appeal be taken. That answers my question. Thank you, Tracy. Any other comments? Any other comments or otherwise I'm ready for a motion. Comment or motion? Comment. Yes, ma'am. One final comment. I just think this is in the area of Floral Cliff, which we're all familiar with that, and someone that's wanting to get into an organic process involving birds and bees, so to speak. that this really casts a different light on anything that we've heard before regarding a cell tower. And I'm kind of at a quandary right now with just how we want to address that. Mr. Wilson. I think that we did have this discussion once before, and I think that the bottom line is people who object to cell towers have not been given the information as to how much information they have to provide in order to overcome the applicant's position. For example, the issue of harming insects and things, that can't simply be a simple statement. It has to be proven, is what I understand. So even though it's difficult for us sitting here, because we can, in a sense, may agree with you on certain times, a lot of this is just ministerial. In other words, by law, unless you walk in here with engineers and lawyers and things of that nature, it is extraordinarily difficult. And we've tried. And our attorneys indicated we turned down one and we lost. And we've had some other questions about others and we've lost. So I've learned my lesson on that to this extent. Unless we've got some real solid information that would, in effect, negate what the applicant has put forth on the table, I hate to say it, but it's a losing cause. Others? Mr. Penn. Mr. Wilson, I think we've also learned, or I know I have, that one of the keys to this thing is co-location. And that's why I asked Mr. Walper the question that I did. And if you're going to build a tire and other people are going to co-locate it on it versus you putting it on another tire that's available to you, it becomes an issue of am I going to be a leasee or a leaseor. And so I think from now on out we need to at least get a statement from the applicant that it is going to be allowed to be co-located on. Now, whether you're located on somebody else's tire or whether they're located on yours, we need to know right quick that it's not just going to be for the benefit of one company. I agree, and Mr. Penn, I agree with that assessment. Mr. Wilson, you down? Yeah, I'm trying to make... Okay, yes. I'd like to move for approval of CT 2016-2, the parallel telecom infrastructure, with the conditions set forth by staff. Second. Motion is made and seconded for approval of CT 2016-2, was it? Yes. Thank you. If there's no further questions in regards to the motion. I have one further question. Well, we've got a motion on the table. We're going to vote on it. It's, you know, a little bit after the fact. I'll let you make a comment after the fact. We do have a motion on the table. It has been seconded. We do need to call for a vote, so please vote when it comes up on the screen. The motion passes. Comment real quick? I appreciate you speaking to that. I think had we had more time, I would have been able to bring proof. Maybe this isn't done. I did want to ask the commission, how does this fall in line with the requirements for, as we learned in the last presentation before this one, with maintaining the character of the neighborhood? That's a difficult thing to ask at times or answer at times. hopefully with the placement it is you know it's not always best for everybody and I know where you're coming from because I was there yesterday on your road driving past your place it's not the best hopefully with co-location there'll be several antennas there and it will limit the towers in the future and all I can hope for is that we go to satellite at some point in time and these towers go away. Apologize, but that's the way it is at this point. I agree with what you're saying for the most part. Other items from the commission? Staff? Mr. Chair, for the first time since Christmas time, you all get a rare Thursday off next week, so we hope you all have a good spring break. We'll see you again on the 7th. Thank you. Audience items. If there's nothing else, I'll ask for a motion for adjournment. I'll adjourn. Do we have a second? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion. Meeting's adjourned. Thank you. My own I want